roughshod over the people. mr. duncan very clearly talked about the state of the union when the president says to this body, america cannot standstill and neither will i. so whenever and whatever steps i can take with that will -- without legislation, that is what i'm going to do. that is chilling. to have people give him a standing ovation and not just a standing ovation but from the house of representatives, where that very power is being taken from. that is our responsibility. that is our duty. you cannot take that pledge and then turn around and say this is just about some kind of political maneuvering. that is not about political maneuvering, that's about the protection of our constitution. these things having enshrined for us. . this is critical we look at this. the executive cannot make exceptions and just enforce the laws he or she wants. that's not who we are as a people. we left monarchs. this is a government by the people, for the people, and of the people. if we ever forget that's what

our job is as members of the house of representatives, then what are we doing here? i would just ask my colleagues on the other side please take a look at this. this is very chilling. you may like where the president's taken us. i may not like where the president's taken us. there is a process we all must follow. this is statute that's being trampled upon by an executive that has an overreach we have never seen before. can we not please return to those days of why those folks came here? what were they seeking? freedom and liberty. what have we allowed these people to do? turn their backs on that, turn away from it, and turn away from a constitution that over a million people have given their lives to make sure we could have this today. mr. speaker, i yield back my time but i would hope some kind of sense of responsibility and not politics comes into this house. i thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, just make sure the record is correct.

what i'm understanding from staff is that while there were some hearings on the subject, that one of the bills had no hearings. and so, again, under regular order i think it would be important that the actual bill have a hearing. the other thing -- my colleague from florida said, oh, he would like a more open process. will he me make a suggestion. then vote for one. because consistently in the rules committee my colleagues on the other side of the aisle routinely vote for closed rules. they routinely vote against allowing amendments, including germane amendments to be made in order, including what i think would be an amendment that would probably -- has bipartisan support, the one by mr. gibson on the war powers act that could have brought us together, that's a legitimate subject. but this piece of legislation before us, the reason why this is such a waste of time, is because it does not reflect the deliberative process. it does not reflect any kind of bipartisan cooperation. it is a political press release.

it is a waste of taxpayers' money. i'll say to the gentleman from pennsylvania, i, too, took a pledge to uphold and protect the constitution, part of that pledge is i represent all of the people, not just. so people, not just those who give big contributions to political parties, but all of the people. i mean, the fact that we have nearly two million people in this country who are cut off from unemployment benefits, what does anybody say to them when you meet people who come up and say that they are looking for a job and can't find one? maybe my friends don't talk to those people, but i will tell you, it is heartbreaking that this congress, the people's congress, that is supposed to represent them, too, has turned their backs on them. what do you say to people who get cut off of their food benefits, who see their food benefits getting slashed? who end up at food banks trying to make ends meet to put food on

the table for their families? we sit here and debate this. a partisan bill. we can't even -- we don't do anything about that. increasing the minimum wage, want to help get people off of food stamps, increase the minimum wage. millions of people would automatically get off of public assistance. we can't even get a vote on that. we are not even allowed to bring that to the floor. people are asking me when are you going to pass comprehensive immigration reform? the senate passed it in a bipartisan way, why can't you bring it on the floor of the house? the answer is because the imperial republican majority in this house has declared no. we are not going to even talk about it. and the rules committee again has been used as a place to shut off democracy. to not have these kinds of important issues brought to the floor. so here we are debating a partisan bill that is purely partisan. you couldn't write it more partisan if my friends tried.

here we are debating this kind of bill while so many other things need to be addressed. this is a waste of time. it is a waste of taxpayer dollars. it diminishes, it diminishes this institution. we are better than that. we should be talking about putting people back to work. we should be talking about helping to improve this economy at a more rapid pace. we should be talking about making sure no one falls through the cracks. we extend unemployment insurance benefits to people who need it. we should be talking about those issues. we should be talking about global warming. instead we are doing this. again, written in a very partisan way, which i regret very much, and again, i urge my colleagues to reject this and reject the rule. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i say again is that as relates to these bills there was discussion in the hearing and testimony

taken to the concept and ideas behind these bills. mr. speaker, we hear about this is partisan. it doesn't say president barack obama. this says the president. that matters -- doesn't matter if it's republican or democrat, mr. speaker. it says the president. it has nothing to do specifically with president obama, but it has everything to do with protecting the constitution. mr. speaker, i'm going to reserve the balance of my time. i'm prepared to close if he doesn't have -- once you're ready. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, the gentleman says that this has nothing to do with president obama. the committee report only cites president obama. in terms of this issue. and their political document, the memorandum that came from

eric cantor to the house republicans, talks about the imperial presidency, and says president obama has provided new clarity what constitutes an imperial presidency. president obama, president obama. i mean for anybody to think for one second that this isn't about trying to attack this president of the united states, it just defies logic. because what we have seen time and time again from the time this president was elected has been nothing but obstructionism and attack, obstructionism and attack, obstructionism and attack. i get it. there are differences in philosophy between the two parties, but what is troubling to me is that in this imperial republican congress president obama's ideas don't even get a chance to have their day on the floor. we are routinely shut out.

i mean in this imperial republican congress, we cannot bring to the floor a bill to increase the minimum wage. we cannot bring to the floor a bill to extend unemployment benefits for those long-term unemployed, over two million people. we cannot bring to the floor a jobs bill. we cannot bring to the floor the bipartisan senate passed comprehensive immigration reform bill which would do the right thing on behalf of a number of immigrants in this country, but would also, by the way, we are told, would reduce our deficit. we can't even bring those things to the floor for debate. under this imperial republican leadership, we are -- our hands are tied. so we try procedural motions. we are trying kiss charge petitions. we are -- discharge petitions. we are trying whatever we can to try to be heard. you know what, i think it's important for the american people to know where people stand.

so if you don't -- if my friends on the other side of the aisle don't believe the american people deserve a raise, they don't believe we should increase the minimum wage, then vote against it, go on record. let the american people see where you stand. on immigration reform, if you don't want to reform our immigration system, fine, vote against it when it comes to the floor. but when you -- when my friends on the other side of the aisle routinely and regularly deny us the opportunity to even consider these things, that -- i think that's -- that hurts our democracy, that diminishes this institution. if you want to talk about imperialism, that's -- what is that? so with that, mr. speaker, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i continue to reserve. ready to close. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i would want to -- i reserve myself the remaining time. give myself the remaining time. mr. speaker, i'm urging my colleagues to defeat the

previous question. if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the rule to bring mr. john 09, that's tierney's bill that contains the historic bipartisan, bicameral agreement on a permanent fix to the sustainable growth rate of medicare. which will ensure fairness to doctors and strengthen medicare. my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have heard from the medical community on this issue. my republican friends, unfortunately, have proposed a poison pill amendment that would kill this bipartisan agreement with an offset attacking the affordable care act. mr. tierney's bill instead includes a commonsense pay for that finances the bipartisan doc fix by putting limits on our spending on wars overseas. we already have these sorts of caps on spending for almost everything else in the budget, and it's time we capped our war spending as well. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on

the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, this amendment simply caps the o.c.o. we give the administration one more year of the overcease contingency operations spending -- overseas contingency operations spending. but beginning in 2016, o.c.o. is subject to budget caps like everything else. funding the war in afghanistan is not emergency spending. we have within there for over a decade. and we --we have been there for over a decade. we all know what the costs entail. the o.c.o. is a so-called emergency account to keep the war in afghanistan funded. i don't know about you, mr. speaker, but the fact that we have troops in afghanistan is no longer a surprise and is no longer an unexpected development. in addition, the o.c.o. has become a splush fund for congress and the pentagon to stick in goodies for procurement and operations and maintenance that it couldn't find room for in the pentagon's half trillion dollar base budget.

now that afghanistan president karzai has made it perfectly clear that he doesn't want the united states or its military in afghanistan, we should at a minimum cap the o.c.o. and bring our troops home now. so if we could find billions and billions of dollars to fund a war that nobody wants in a country where the government insults our troops every single day, we can use those moneys to fund real needs right at home by permanently fixing the s.g.r. once and for all. we talk about trying to find common ground. i think there's a lot of common ground on this issue amongst democrats and republicans. i think there are a lot of republicans who are just as sick of this endless war and this over-the-top unaccounted for spending in these wars as democrats are. so i think this is a sensible offset. and i urge my colleagues to support our initiative. i urge my colleagues to vote no. and to defeat the previous

question. and vote no on the underlying bills for all the reasons why i said before. we should be using the taxpayer dollars to do things to help people on this house floor, not to advance political agendas. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i agree with much of what my colleague from massachusetts said. particularly as it relates to our involvement in afghanistan and the karzai regime. let me read you some quotes, mr. speaker. let's see who we thought said these quotes. the power of what has begun to be termed the imperial presidency grows. the ability of our democratic institutions, especially the federal legislative branch, to constrain it seems more uncertain. next quote, we are a co-equal branch of government, if our systems of checks and balances going to operate, it's imperative we understand how the executive branch is enforcing or

ignoring the laws signed into law. we are talking about a systematic -- another quote, talking about a systematic extra constitution mode of conduct by the white house. the conduct threatens to deprive the american people of one of the basic rights of democracy. the right to elect representatives who determine what the law is. subject only to the president veto. does not mean having a president sign those laws, but saying he's free to carry them out or not all he sees fit to carry out. another quote is, i believe that all of our interest to work together to reign in excesses of the executive -- rein in excesses of the executive branch ether it's democratic, republican, or libertarian hands. lastly i will suggest to you that all those quotes i just read were from a highly respected democrat, mr. conyers, back talking about the george w.

bush presidency. what has changed? that's what we are talking about today. this isn't about republicans or democrats. even mr. conyers said that that's a problem. that we are giving up what we are supposed to be doing here in the legislative branch legislating. the president has a right to veto. but when he signs it into law, he has an obligation to faithfully execute the laws that he signs. he signs. into law. mr. speaker, in an interview mr. speaker, an interview with "the new york times" last july, the president was asked if he had the constitutional authority to deray the employer mandate thnd the -- and the president's response was this, speaking about members of congress, quote, i'm not concerned about their opinions, very few of them by the way are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.

well, mr. speaker, he's right in one regard, most of us aren't constitutional lawyers. and i'm certainly glad the president is proud of his academic achievements. but it doesn't take a constitutional lawyer to understand that we have separation of powers in this country and that's what makes us unique. doesn't take a constitutional lawyer to understand that the president can't just pick and choose which laws to enforce and which ones don't worry about. we don't have to enforce it. any eighth grade civics student can tell you that. our constitution explicitly states that the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. it's even in the oath of office. doesn't say if i disagree with them, that means i don't have to worry about that that's in the oath of office. that he's supposed to do that mr. speaker, i take that oath to support and defend the

constitution very seriously. i did it when i raised my hand at 18 years old when i went into the air force. i did it when i was 21 years old when i became a police officer outside of chicago. i did it again when i was deputy sheriff have -- sheriff, i did it again when i was sheriff, and i did it when i got elected to congress, now a second time. i take that oath personal. i have three son this is a serve this country today. they've all raised their hand to support and defend the constitution. now when -- not when it's convenient, not when it meets what i need out of it. it says you do it. that's the law. that's the constitution. and we kind of forget that. we say that's just the document, it's a dusty document. that's not the case, mr. speaker. it talks about how we conduct ourselves as a government of the people and by the people, not because of who we are, not

because of who we are, and i'm concerned on quite a few instances now this president clearly hasn't faithfully executed those laws. just recently, the president announced a delay in the implementation of obamacare. the administration says he'll continue to allow insurance companies to offer plan this is a don't meet obamacare's coverage requirements. how many delays does that make, mr. speaker? i have no idea. i have lost count. i haven't kept track. but there's been a lot of them because they all hit the front page, most of them hit the front page of the paper. just because the president's health care law isn't working doesn't mean the president can just change it on the fly. i understand it's what he wants, it's the implementation of a law, but it doesn't say he can just change it willy nily. the president is literally making it up as -- as he goes

along. delaying the consequences of obamacare, however, does not fix them. perhaps our colleagues are facing frustrated constituents. that just aren't quite read twroy defend the law yet. maybe that's the case. perhaps it's themselves that these are really meant for, i don't know. nevertheless, i don't object to delay og ba macare, just the president's desire not to come to congress to do it. congress enacted it. congress has a right then to modify it. not the president. in fact, a lot of these plans are good fits for consumers. cancellations they face, the higher premiums and deductibles are a real hardship that doesn't change the fact that the means to which the president changed the policy is wrong and we all know it. it's time for this body to come together, prevent our constitutional role from disintegrating further. it matters not what has occurred

in the last 40 years, it matters what occurs today. it matters to the people i represent that i faithfully support and defend the constitution. it's time this body pushed back against any presidency that would assert itself, whether it was mr. conyers speaking of the prior presidents or it's us speaking about this current president. i'm confident that the underlying legislation, the rule that it provides for will start the process and i urge my colleagues, if you care about protecting our three-branch system of government, support this rule and support the underlying legislation. mr. speaker, with that, i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time the previous -- the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it.

>> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this ote, the yeas are 225 --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 227, the nays are 19240erk previous question is ordered. the question -- the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or

commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 229, the nays are 192. the resolution is adopted and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the chair lays before the house a communication.

the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on march 12, 2014, at 10:52 a.m., that the senate agreed to senate joint resolution 32. signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that i may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsors of h.j.res. 43, removing the deadline for the ratification of equal rights amendment a bill originally introduced by representative robert andrews of new jersey for the purpose of add cog sponsors and requesting reprinting. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

he house will come to order. the house will come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 4148. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 511

and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 4138. the chair appoints the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, to preside over the committee of the whole. e chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 4138 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to protect the separation of powers in the constitution of the united states by ensuring that the president takes care that the laws be faithfully executed and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from virginia mr. goodlatte and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia.

mr. goodlatte: the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the committee is not in order. will members please remove their conversation from the aisles and the well. the gentleman from vifrpbl is -- from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: our system of government is a tripartite one, with each branch having certain defined functions delegated to it by the constitution. the president is charged with executing the laws. the congress with writing the laws, and the judiciary with interpreting them. the obama administration, however, has ignored the constitution's carefully balanced separation of powers and unilaterally granted itself the extra constitutional authority to amend the laws and to waive or suspend their enforcement. this raw assertion of authority

goes well beyond the executive power granted to the president and specifically violates the constitution's command that the president is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the house -- the committee is ot in order. would all members remove their onversations from the floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: from obamacare to welfare and education reform, to our nation's drug enforcement laws and other areas of the law, president obama has been picking and choosing which laws to enforce. in place of the checks and balances established by the constitution, president obama has proclaimed that, quote, i refuse to take no for an answer and that, where congress won't

act, i will. throughout the obama presidency, we have seen a pattern. president obama circumvents congress when he doesn't get his way. but the constitution does not confer upon the president the executive authority to disregard the separation of powers and rewrite acts of congress based on his policy preferences. this is a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the president must faithfully execute the laws passed by congress. we cannot continue to allow the president to ignore the constitutional limits on executive power. the president's far-reaching claims of executive power if left unchecked, will vest this and future presidents with broad domestic policy authority that the constitution does not grant. . as a prominent law professor testified, that he voted for president obama, warned in testimony before the judiciary committee, quote, the problem with what the president is doing

is he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system, he's becoming the very danger the constitution was designed to avoid. that is the concentration of power in a single branch, end quote. that is why i joined with representative gowdy and chairman issa to introduce h.r. 4138, the enforce the law act. this legislation puts a procedure in place to permit the house or senate to authorize lawsuits against the executive branch for failure to faithfully execute the laws. the courts have held that lawsuits alleging institutional injuries must be brought by the injured institution itself and h.r. 4138 is solidly in line with those judicial precedents. in addition, because it is an act of congress, the enforce the special an apply procedural rules to significantly increase the speed at which cases challenging the

president's failure to faithfully execute are considered by the courts. these provisions are critical to ensure the president cannot simply stall a lawsuit until his term is up. in addition, these provisions are similar to those that were in the line-item veto act, litigation challenging the constitutionality of the line-item veto preceded through the district court and was decided by the supreme court within seven months of being filed. the enforce the law act will help overcome the hostility the courts have shown toward deciding disputes between the political branches in the past. the constitution's framers did not expect the judiciary to sit on the sidelines and watch as one branch agrandized its own powers and exceeded the authority granted to it by the constitution. rather, the constitution gives the federal courts very broad jurisdiction to hear, quote, all cases arising under this constitution and the laws of the united states, end quote.

however, over time the courts have read their own powers much more narrowly, refusing to exercise a vital check over unconstitutional action by the executive branch. when the courts refuse to step in and umpire these disputes, they crede the -- creed the field to this and future -- cede the field of this and future presidents. as then senator obama observed in 2008, one of the most important jobs of the supreme court is to guard against the encroachment of the executive branch on the power of other branches, and i think the chief justice has been a little bit too willing and eager to give an administration, whether it's mine or george bush's, more power than i think the constitution originally intended, end quote. the enforce the law act will help ensure that when congress brings a lawsuit against the administration for its refusal to enforce the laws, the courts

take up the case and decide it expeditiously. this legislation is a good first step toward ending this crisis and restoring balance to our system of government. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conyers: members of the so , the enforce act like many other bills that we have considered in congress is trulyal solution in search of a problem. -- truly a solution in search of a problem. as was made clear during the two full committee oversight hearings that we held on the constitution's take care clause,

the president, in fact, fully met his obligation to faithfully execute the laws. mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the house is -- the committee is not in order. members are asked to take their conversations off the floor, please. the gentleman deserves to be heard. mr. conyers: so let us acknowledge what this legislation is really about. it is simply yet another attempt by the majority to prevent the president of the united states from implementing duly elected legislative initiatives that they oppose. allowing the flexibility and the implementation of a new program even where the statute mandates a specific deadline is neither unusual nor a constitutional violation.

it is the reality of administering sometimes complex programs and is part and parcel of the president's duty to take care that he faithfully execute laws. this has been especially true with respect to the affordable care act. the president's decision to extend certain compliance dates to help phase in the act is not a novel tactic, and even though not a single court has ever concluded that reasonable delay and implementing a complex law constitutes a violation of the take care clause, the majority insists that there is a constitutional crisis. additionally, the exercise of enforcement discretion is a traditional power of the executive. for example, the decision to defer deportation of young

adults who were brought to the united states as children, the dreamers, is a classic exercise of such discretion. h.r. 4138 could also have the perverse effect of preventing the president from taking steps to protect people's rights. h.r. 4138 had been law in 1861, the congress could have sued president lincoln for issuing the emancipation proclamation because congress could have concluded that president lincoln had failed to enforce then existing laws protecting the institution of slavery, like the fugitive slave law. likewise, if h.r. 4138 had been law in 1948, congress could have

sued president truman for issuing executive order 9981 which desegregated the armed services in contravention of then existing military policy. and it is no surprise that the supreme court has consistently held that the exercise of such discretion is a function of the president's power under the take care clause. as the court held in heckler v. chaney, an agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion. even assuming there is a problem o address, h.r. 4138 is itself wrong because it violates fundamental separation of powers, principles, and may be

inconstitutional as applied. the enforce act would essentially allow federal courts to second-guess decisions by the executive branch in a potentially vast range of areas that are committed under the constitution to the discretion of the political branches like the conduct of foreign affairs. additionally, it is highly unlikely that congress could satisfy the standing requirements of article 3 of the constitution which are meant to reinforce the constitution's separation of powers principles. to meet those standarding -- standing requirements, a plaintiff must show it suffered a concrete and particularized injury. the kind of injury that would be the subject of a civil action under h.r. 4138. however, would amount only to an alleged violation of a right to

have the administration enforce the law in a particular way. p i ask unanimous consent to put the rest of my statement in the record. the chair: without objection. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time it's my distinct pleasure to yield five minutes to the chief sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, a member of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. speaker. i also want to thank chairman goodlatte for his leadership on this bill and a host of others on the judiciary committee. mr. speaker, i want to have a pop quiz. that may seem unfair to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but i would give them a hint, the answer to every one of the questions is the same. i'm going to read a quote and then you tell me who said it. these last few years we have seen an unacceptable abuse of

power. having a president whose priority is expanding his own power. any guess on who said that, mr. speaker? it was senator barack obama. here's another one, no law can give congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as a co-equal branch, the constitution made it. senator barack obama. what do we do with a president who can basically change what congress passed by attaching a letter saying i don't agree with this part or that part? senator barack obama. i taught the constitution for 10 years, i believe in the constitution. senator barack obama. and my favorite, mr. speaker, one of the most important jobs of the supreme court is to guard against the encroachment of the executive branch on the power of the other branches.

and i think the chief justice has been a little too willing and eager to give the president more power than i think the congress -- the constitution originally intended. so my question, mr. speaker, is, how in the world can you get before the supreme court if you don't have standing? what did the president mean by that when he looked to the supreme court to rein in executive overreach if you don't have standing, how can you possibly get before the supreme court? so my question, mr. speaker, is what's changed? how does going from being a senator to a president rewrite the constitution? what's different from when he was a senator? mr. speaker, i don't think there's an amendment to the constitution that i missed. i try to keep up with those with regularity. but what i to know is this,

process matters. if you doubt it, mr. speaker, ask a prosecutor or a police officer, both of whom, as my friends on the other side of the aisle know, both of whom are members of the executive branch. what happens when a police officer fails to check the right box on a search warrant application? the evidence is thrown out, mr. speaker. even though he was well intended. even though he had good motivations. even though we got the evidence because process matters. what happens, mr. speaker, when the police go and get a confession from a defendant? he did it. this is not a who dunn it. he admitted he did it. you got the right person for the right crime. but what happens if he doesn't follow the process? the defendant walks free. and the criminal defense attorneys who are now congressmen on the other side of the aisle know that that's exactly what they argued when

they were before the judge, not that the end justifies the means. don't look at the motivations. look at the process. mr. speaker, we are not a country where the ends justify the means no matter how good your motivations may be. we all swore an allegiance to the same document that the president swears allegiance to, to faithfully execute the law. i will be listening intently during this debate for one of my colleagues to explain to me what that phrase means. what does it mean? not to execute the law, but when the framers thought enough of that phrase to add the modifier faithfully, what does that mean? er and if a president does not faithfully execute the law, mr. speaker, what are our remedies? do we just sit and wait on another election? do we use the power of the purse, the power of impeachment?

those are punishments not remedies. the remedy is to do exactly what barack obama said to do, to go to court, to go to the supreme court and have the supreme court say once and for all, we don't pass suggestions in this body, mr. speaker, we don't pass ideas , we pass laws. and we expect them to be faithfully executed. . and with that i yield back to the gentleman from virginia. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the gentleman from tennessee who is the ranking member of the constitution subcommittee of house judiciary, mr. cohen, four minutes. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for four minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you yielding. as some of my colleagues said so eloquently during last week's judiciary markup on this

bill that the majority's attempt to turn routine exercises of presidential discretions into constitutional violations is nothing but a show and a pretext to attack the president of the united states. the hearing we had reminded me of a woody allen saying in a movie called "bananas," acting is -- he said this is a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. that's what this bill is. that's what that hearing was. that's what this proceeding is. h.r. 4138 would establish a process by which one house of congress could sue the president when it determines the president failed to faithfully execute a law. one house. not two houses. they talk about the separation of powers. separation of powers is executive and legislative, and legislative is senate and house. now, the house originates spending bills and the senate confirms judges and things like that and there was some discussion yesterday and the

chairman brought up a situation where the senate went to the court on an issue concerning some appointments which the senate had exclusive jurisdiction on. it was when they had jurisdiction. when the senate and house co-share equally, unless the senate and house both want to act, it's not a separation of powers. it's one house trying to act as a star chamber to take down the president of the united states. this bill would, if enacted, would have a massively upended of the carefully crafted separation of powers. just one house. not two houses of congress. and one gentleman talked about something of florida. florida, whatever they got. they got some kind of situation, but that was an action where the governor was acting beyond his -- it's not the president acting within his authority and determining the best way to act. difference between taking action and not taking action and taking action you're not authorized to take. they didn't defend their

position once correctly. and ess lacks the standing mr. conyers brought that up. standing requirements is necessary, and also by drafting deral courts into deciding further upsets the forces of power. take care of clause makes clear. it is the president's duty alone to take care the laws be faithfully executed, not the courts and not congress'. the court doesn't involve themselves on how a law is executed. this bill flies in the face of such. ultimately, though, this bainled the larger debates idea of g it, has no constitutional law. they are trying to delegit ma ies what this president -- does. the employer mandates for

medium and large businesses. the rolling stones had a song, sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you get what you need. with the affordable care act, they got what they wanted and what the president thought they needed and now they're against it holding the president up and claiming -- in yiddish that's called chutzpah. astopple and lled in congress it's called not taking yes for an answer. i find it odd this is what they choose to emphasize that this president is acting in an allegedly unconstitutional way to undermine his own signature legislation. it shows the depth of what they called obama derangement syndrome when they are the opponents will reverse their long-held views if they believe in doing will weaken his stature. the president has led and this congress has failed on immigration reform, on minimum

wage and yes on health care. the thanks president obama gets from this majority for his efforts to enforce the law as thoughtful as he could is accused of violating the constitution. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. cohen: thank you, sir. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to another chief co-sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. gerlach. mr. gerlach: i thank the chairman. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. gerlach: i rise today in support of this legislation that strives to restore the quow equal balance of power -- co-equal balance of power and would establish the procedure of making sure all presidents are accountable of meeting their constitutional obligation to faithfully execute all duly enacted laws. chairman goodlatte, congressman gowdy and members of the judiciary have done an outstanding the job of explaining to the american people to make sure that the legislative and executive branches are functioning as intended by the framers.

the bill before us today represents a collaborative effort to craft a legislative response to a series of unilateral actions by the president that he's taken to enforce, duly ignore enacted laws. the affordable care act, or obamacare, a law written exclusive by the president and members of his party has been delayed, amended and effectively rewritten about two dozen times the past year. the law hasn't changed by coming to congress and working with us on reasonable changes, we're following the legislative process we were taught in high school sievics. no, the law was modified because the president and his administration simply declared it to be changed. in most cases on late friday afternoons or right before a major holiday, like thanksgiving. now, today's vote is not about rehashing the debate about obamacare. the president has also unilatly enacted to stop the prosecution of nondrug offenses and nullify

sections of law on education. it's as if the president thinks our laws are written in pencil and it's his job to take a giant eraser and scribble in new words that fit his agenda. or as george washington university jonathan turley said, quote, president obama's become the very danger the constitution designed to avoid. if a president can unilaterally change the meaning of laws in substantial ways or refuse to enforce them, it takes off line the very thing that stabilizes our system, end quote. after that hearing i was able to introduce legislation to create a fast track independent judicial review process that would settle disputes over whether a president has exceeded his constitutional authority and whether he's met his duty to faithfully execute the law. legislation today before us accomplishes those same goals. it represents a commonsense procedural reform that establishes a practical effective solution to resolve

serious questions about executive overreach. our system of checks and balances was designed to prevent a president or any other branch of the federal government from being able to unilaterally declare law by whatever that individual says it is at that point in time after the law was enacted. no doubt madison, jefferson and other framers understood that allowing a concentration of power of one branch was a recipe of crayos and instability. so if congress does not act and fails to hold a president accountable for executing the laws as written, how can we expect citizens to have any respect of the law as passed by this chamber? therefore, i urge my colleagues to support this bill, to restore and preserve the del can't constitutional balance among the three branches of our frl system and take an important step of restoring the confidence of the public in our government. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, it's the asure to grant the gentlelady from california, ms.

love -- to grant the gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren, who is the ranking member of the immigration subcommittee on judiciary, three minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for three minutes. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, in the committee report from the -- that accompanies these bills, on page 13 and 14, there are three items that the majority says that the president can't do. one is to defer action for the dreamers, young people who are brought here innocently in violation of immigration laws. three, to allow the wives of american soldiers who are undocumented to stay and not be deported. and finally to allow parents who've been arrested for immigration to try and preserve their parental rights. is it legal for the president to take these actions? certainly it is. in the heckler v. cheney as well as in the arizona vs. the united states court decision, the supreme court makes clear

that in immigration, the ability to enforce or decide not to enforce is part of the broad executive authority. and further, the united states congress' actually delegated to 6 u.s. utive branch code 202 of the national immigration enforcement and priorities policies to the president. now, is this anything new? no. we have paroled in place cubans since john f. kennedy was president. in 2010, a bipartisan group of members, including congressman michael turner and mac thornberry from the armed services committee and myself wrote and said, please, mr. president, don't deport the wives of american soldiers. and the president used his authority to do that as prior presidents had done. the use of parole in place is delegated to the president and

nothing new. now, why is this important? these bills are drafted to keep the president from doing the things that he did to allow the children to stay and to allow the wives of american soldiers not to be deported. i think that what the majority wants to do is to not only have a do-nothing but to have a do-nothing president. and when it comes to immigration, this is very serious. we have had one vote on immigration here in the congress. it was on congressman king's bill to deport the dream act kids. we've heard a lot of discussion about a bill supposedly that's going to be brought forward by the majority about the innocent children who've been brought here, but we haven't seen a bill. instead, we see these bills, which would allow the congress to overrule the president's

action so that the dream act kids will be deported, so that the wives of soldiers who are in battle in afghanistan would be deported, so that individuals who are caught up in an immigration problem would lose their children to social services, would lose their parental rights. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. lofgren: i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield to the majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cantor: i thank chairman goodlatte and thank him for his leadership on this effort. mr. chairman, i rise today in support of the enforce the law act. our founders created a series of checks and balances for our

democracy to prevent anyone of the three branches of government from becoming too powerful. this separation of powers has always been one of the most important pillars of our political system and an example of good governance for the world to follow. for over 200 years, america has prospered because we adhere to a constitution that makes each branch's role explicitly clear. the elected representatives in congress pass laws, the president faithfully enforces them and an independent judiciary adjudicates disputes. this lesson is so important, we teach it to our schoolchildren and articulate it to our citizens so they understand the rules of the road. when we fail to uphold this system and one branch of government begins to tip the scales of power in its favor, we dissend towards chaos.

today we are seeing the system break down. this administration's blatant disregard for the rule of law has not been limited to just a few instances. from gutting welfare reform and no child left behind requirements to refusing to enforce immigration and drug laws, the president's dangerous expansion of powers appears to be endless. whether one believes in the merit of the end goal or not, this is not how the executive branch was intended by our founders to act. these actions not only weaken the credibility of our political constitutions, they also threaten our chances of returning to a time of robust job growth by creating uncertainty in the economy. this has become most evident with the implementation of the president's disastrous health care law that is wreaking havoc on small businesses, wreaking havoc on wage earners and

working families. even "the washington post" ran a story this weekend dealing how arbitrary changes to obamacare are creating mass confusion for consumers. our constituents deserve better. . it doesn't kay for the rule of law or balance of powers designed by our founders. the only way we established the intent of our constitution is to create a process by which either chamber of congress can take the matter to court, which is what this legislation does. it goes hand in hand with the faithful execution of the law act which we'll consider later today. that bill requires the administration to tell congress when they decided that they don't like a law and are he refusing to do the constitutional duty and enforce it. these bills are not just about president obama. what if future republican

presidents decide that they don't like the tax increases enacted by democrats in congress or a past democratic president? can that president just refuse to collect those taxes? or renfor -- resist enforcing laws they don't like? no. any future president must work with congress to seek changes in laws that need to be reformed. as james madison said, to see the laws fruitfully executed constitutes the essence of the executive authority. we have an opportunity today to stand together in a bipartisan manner and put mechanisms in place to prevent the executive branch from continually abusing its power, and they will remain in place no matter which party controls the white house. so let us pass this legislation and show the american people that we are committed to a

government that functions the way it was intended to, within the framework of our constitution. i want to thank chairman goodlatte, representative gowdy, representative desantis, and the rest of the judiciary committee who have worked so hard on this very important issue, and i strongly urge my colleagues in the house to support the bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i'm pleased now to recognize the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. thank you. z: the goal of the enforce act is to ensure that this do-nothing congress forces president obama to be a do-nothing president as well. it's not enough for the republican majority to be setting records for how little they are doing, they expect the

same do nothingness from the president, especially on immigration. what republicans have failed to do is work with our democratic colleagues to bring serious, realistic, and achievable immigration reform legislation to the floor. reform that is overwhelmingly popular with the american people. they worked with us for months, then they decided they would rather deploy their sound bite strategy that, quote, the president can't be trusted to enforce the law and walked away from negotiation. the republicans put forward broad, vage, but sensible principles they said would guide their reform effort then just as quickly decided they would deploy their sound bite strategy that the president can't be trusted to enforce the law, and walk away from the legislation. i want to take a moment to show you this because i want to point it over to my republican colleagues in case they forgot, and it's signed by lamar smith and henry hyde. here's what it says. there has been widespread agreement that some deportations

were unfair and resulted in unjustifiable hardship. in fact, substaniate the presentations that have been made to us, we must ask why the i.n.s. pursued removal in such cases when so many other more serious cases existed. you wrote the president of the united states and asked then president clinton to use his discretionary power. you said further in your letter, it is well-grounded the prosecutorial discretion termination of removal proceed, see attached memorandum. then you said, optimally, removal proceedings should be initiated. that's deportation should be initiated or terminated only upon specific intrusion from authorized i.n.s. officials in accordance with agency guidelines. however the i.n.s. apparently has not promulgated such guidelines. that's what the president of the united states, he promulgated guidelines which you said that then president clinton would not promulgate.

hat were they? he promulgated guidelines, please don't tell me it was a group of people and he they have to do it individually. tell the thousands of dreamers that have been denied that they have to apply individually. each and every case was applied individually. each of them came before the authority and said i want to apply for this program under these guidelines, promulgated by president obama. but when he does it i guess you don't care. i guess then we can't trust them. no, you can't trust him because you don't want to act and you want to use it as an excuse. moreover, i want to read to you from the republican principles on immigration. this is what your caucus put forward. one of the greatest founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistake of their parents. it is time to provide an opportunity for legal residents of citizenship for those brought to this country as children through no fault of their own

and have no other place. yet today -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gutierrez: take that ability from the president of the united states. the chair: members are reminded that they must direct their remarks to the chair and not to others in the second person. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds to point out that this legislation does two things. one, it expedites any court consideration of lawsuits brought under this legislation. and two, it recognizing the distinction between constitutional standing and other standing that has been court created it says that thus standing can be waived. that does not in any way determine what a court's ruling might be or even what their ruling would be on the standing of a particular lawsuit brought. but it strengthens the hand of the congress, any congress, under the control of any leadership to determine whether or not to bring lawsuits. at this time it's my pleasure to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the

gentleman from texas, mr. smith, a leader of the house and former chairman of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 1/2 minutes. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. first of all i want to thank the gentleman from virginia, the chairman of the judiciary committee for yielding me time, and i thank the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, for introducing this bill. i very quickly respond to what the gentleman from illinois said. quite frankly he's smarter than that. he knows the letter had to do with individual prosecutorial discretion, and he he knows the president basically exempted broad categories of individuals and went far beyond individual discretionary prosecution. mr. speaker, h.r. 4138 authorizes either chamber of congress to challenge as an institution the administration's failure to faithfully execute the laws. and in accordance with the constitutional separation of powers doctrine, it protects the legislative branch of government from an overreaching executive. the obama administration has ignored laws, failed to enforce laws, undermined laws, and

changed laws by executive orders and administrative actions. these include laws covering health care, immigration, marriage, drugs, and welfare retirements. other presidents have issued more executive orders, but no president has issued so many broad and expansive executive orders that stretch the constitution to its breaking point. as for not enforcing laws, in 2011 the president instructed the attorney general of the united states not to defend the defense of marriage act in court. recently the attorney general declared that state attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws they believe are discriminatory. other times the president has decided not to enforce immigration laws as they apply to entire categories of individuals, as i just mentioned. and the president has decreed a dozen changes to the affordable care act, also known as obamacare. but neither the president nor the attorney general have the constitutional right to make or change laws themselves.

the president and the attorney general have a constitutional obligation to enforce existing laws. if they think a law is unconstitutional, they should wait for the courts to rule. but their opinion is no substitute for due process and judicial review. it is their job to enforce existing laws whether they personally like them or not. ours is a nation of laws not a nation of random enforcement. all true form starts with the voice of the people. if american voters rise up and speak loudly enough, they will be heard. today the united states house of representatives is listening to them by bringing the enforce the law act to the floor. i urge its adoption and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i'm pleased now to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, a --

the ranking subcommittee member on the house judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to h.r. 4138, the enforce act. the enforce act seeks to diminish the power of the executive branch by giving congress the ability to act as an enforcement agency. as the most do nothingness house of representatives in american history, this body doesn't need any extra responsibilities, especially that which would be unconstitutional. the seminal case of marbury vs. madison not only established judicial power to review the constitutionality of laws and actions, but it affirms the fact that we have three separate co-equal branches of government. if there is an issue with the president failing to execute the laws, the supreme court has the authority by way of writ of

mandamus, to compel the president to act. but have my righteously indignant friends on the other side of the aisle sought to use that process to check the alleged abuse of authority by the president? no, they have not. why haven't they sued to force this president to enforce laws that they contend he has refused to implement? well, they haven't sued because they know that they would not present a truthful case. they know that they would lose the case. they know that this president has not exceeded his constitutional authority. this legislation is simply a showcase for the false narrative that the republicans continue to perpetuate upon the american people. that false narrative is that this president is not an american, he's not one of us, and that the president is a

communist/socialist who is doing everything he can to turn this nation into a third world country. that's a false narrative. our forefathers by way of the united states constitution have put safeguards in place to ensure the executive faithfully execute the laws passed by the legislative branch. 15 seconds. thank you, mr. chairman. i offered an amendment to this patently absurd piece of legislation when it was considered by the judiciary committee. my amendment stressed the importance of protecting the delicate balance that the nstitution affords the legislative and executive branches. a delicate balance of power. the president has the right to choose how to set enforcement priorities with respect to

immigration policy as well as the power to exercise discretion and the implementation of the affordable care act. mr. speaker, thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, a member of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. poe: i thank the chairman for yielding time. mr. chairman, the constitution and the laws of the land are not mere suggestions for any president, whether it's this president, future presidents, or presidents before us. but this administration for some reason continues to enforce laws that congress passes that have been signed by other presidents. despite the constitutional phrase that the executive will faithfully execute the law, the administration ignores the faithful part. it's been unfaithful in many

cases of executing the laws of the land. as a former constitutional law professor in the white house said he will rule by pen and phone. whatever happened to ruling by the constitution? i guess we don't use that anymore. if the administration doesn't like a law, the administration ignores the law. if the administration wants to change the law rather than come to congress and let us work with the president to amend the law, the president just issues an edict and changes the law. this has created a constitutional nightmare. a constitutional crisis. a constitutional chaos because we never know what's going to happen with the law of the land. is it a mere suggestion or is it in concrete? this is a democracy not a kingdom. the united states president -- the united states president is not supposed to be an emperor. not supposed to rule down from mount sinai about what he thinks

the law should be. we disagree on whether the president has abused that power or not. we'll disagree on future presidents. what do we do about that? let's go to court, let's resolve those issues in a court of law where the constitution and the law of the land is followed, mr. chairman. . and that's all this bill does, it allows us to go in the courtroom, it allows us to make their case on any particular issue and then we let an impartial judge make the decision. i support the legislation and that's just the way it is. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, it's my pleasure now to yield one inute to the distinguished jendlelady from california, ms. chu. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. chu: once again, republicans are attempting to

restrict the president's constitutional authority of prosecutorial discretion. deportation of dreamers is squarely within the authority's -- president's authority. it is right there under the constitution's take care clause. the childhood program makes sense and is the right thing to do. these kids study in our schools, they play in our neighborhoods, they pledge allegiance to our flag. all they want to do is continue calling their home home. every day that republicans stonewall immigration reform, another 1,100 people are deported and families are split up. instead, the i.c.e. patental directive does not limit immigration enforcement at all. the directive is about family values. it's about american families. bills like this waste time while thousands of families are

separated. this must end now. i urge a no vote on this bill. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, may i inquire how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has 11 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan, 11 1/2. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from michigan, ms. -- 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. miller, the chairman of the house administration committee. the chair: the gentlelady is ecognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. miller: mr. speaker, in our republic congress debates and passes the laws, the president signs and enforces e law and the judicial interprets the law. our revolution defeated by keeping any single branch or

individual from gaining too much power. article 2, section 3 of the constitution says the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, not maybe or not if it isn't really working the way that he would like. it says the president shall faithfully execute the law. the enforce act that we are debating today will simply give a house of congress standing in federal court to bring suit, to make certain that the president upholds his constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law. if my friends on the other side have been listening to this debate, if actually -- my friends on the other side of the aisle actually think the president and all of the actions this administration have taken on obamacare are constitutional, then they should have no fear, mr. speaker, no fear at all of giving congress this standing. and i would urge all of my colleagues to join me in standing up for our constitution and ensuring that the rule of law is followed in our great nation. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her

time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, it's with great pleasure i yield two minutes to -- three minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for three minutes. s. jackson lee: thank you. let me thank the ranking member for his kindness, and the managers of this legislation and all of my colleagues that to come to the floor really try to seek truth. we've often said truth to power . the constitution is the powerful document that all of us abide by. we take an oath of office to do

so. now, going through the markup that we do in regular order, we, as the opposition, the loyal opposition, over and over again try to query what was the truth of this legislation, what was the purpose of it. how was it going to be valid in light of the constitution and the powers that are part of the presidency? the presidency has executive powers, and those powers were or her sis of his ability to work with the three branches of government. now we have legislation that wants to do a number of things abolish the powers of the presidency. abolish them. because you disagree with policy. it wants to put the members of the united states congress -- believe me, all of us would

like to be able to have standing, to be able to challenge anything. we understand that when we made that attempt on several occasions, the courts have said you don't have standing. it is to the people. so now we want to orchestrate back so rather than the legislative process, which is given to the congress and three branches of government, we desire, if you will, to go and put ourself in place on immigration reform, on protecting the environment, on the questions of justice, whether it has to be with ensuring that the election is unimpeded, whether it has to do with correcting policies that need to be corrected, we now want to get in front of that rather than doing it through the legislative process. i'm glad my colleagues have spoken about immigration because one of the bills that did not come forward was to abolish a position that the administration has every right

to utilize dealing with advocacy on undocumented who are in a detention center that are not charged particularly with criminal acts. we already know there is a veto threat, and it is a veto threat not for the present president of the united states, but to uphold the constitution. and so the charge is that there is no trust in this president and there is a vy proliferation of the constitution. i can assure you that people beyond this body would raise up the issue of constitutionality if it was real. it is not. there are some professors who want to write a variety of law review papers and want to talk about how far we are exceeding our powers. these are purely addressing the question of the law and making sure that the law is applied fairly to individuals -- mr. conyers: i yield the gentlelady 30 additional seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much.

and i will conclude by saying that what this bill is doing is seeking to usurp the powers of the president, particularly president obama. and my friends on the other side, although i never attribute any malfeasance or bad intentions to members that come on this floor, we never did this with president bush. there was some question about signing statements, and some of us wanted to address the question of signing statements, but we never discerned or decided to be able to put on the floor of the house the complete abolishment of the powers of the presidency. i ask my colleagues to vote down this legislation because it is unconstitutional. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself 15 seconds to remind those here that during the time that the other party was in the majority, they sued the bush administration to enforce the subpoena related to harriet miers. so all we're trying to do is when you do that we make it

very clear there have been an expedited process. we've sued to get documents for the fast and furious matter. that's more than four years old. so we're only trying to make this process of holding up the powers of the house work better. at this time i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino, a member of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. marnmarn -- mr. marino: i thank the chairman. mr. chairman, the president has sworn a complete -- has shown a complete disregard for the rule of law. rather than upholding and enforcing the law as written by congress, president obama has decided to rewrite them however it pleases him. the united states constitution, to which every president swears an oath, commands that the president, quote, shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unquote. as a former u.s. attorney, i took an oath to execute fully

my duties. i took this oath very seriously, and that meant following the rule of law even though i disagreed with it. it's time to hold the president accountable for violating his oath of office and restore balance between the three branches of government. i would like to remind my colleagues that there's an old and -- power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely. and just recently, the president was caught on an open mic saying, i'm the president, can do what i want. my colleagues, i ask you to join me in supporting h.r. 4138, introduced by my esteemed colleague on the judiciary committee, representative trey gowdy, and i yield back. the chair: members are reminded

of not engaging in personalities with regard to the president. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i'd like to remind my friend of the judiciary committee that subpoenas are regular exercise of power in the house of representatives. and now i yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. foster, one minute. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. foster: thank you. mr. chairman, i rise today in opposition to the enforce act. for 20 years, our immigration system has been left to rot due to congressional inaction. as a result, today we have over 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the shadows. after 20 years of neglect, we finally have a commonplace immigration reform package that's already passed the senate with bipartisan support and has an unprecedented array of support from religious groups, from law enforcement and business leaders throughout the country. it is rare to find a subject that labor leaders and the

chamber of commerce can agree on but both have called on congress to promptly pass comprehensive immigration reform. but speaker boehner and the house republican leadership have ignored the millions of voices calling for reform, refusing even to bring it up for a vote. and now today we are preparing to vote on the enforce act, legislation that would have the practical effect of ripping millions of young men and women away from the only home they've ever known. the deferred action for childhood arrivals program has allowed countless undocumented youth to remain in the u.s., to attend our schools and to contribute to our economy. instead of -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. conyers: i would yield the gentleman an additional 30g seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. foster: instead of fixing our broken immigration system, they are having detention practices that are costing taxpayers millions and tearing familiarries a-- families apart. mr. chairman, we can't fix the

problem by ignoring the system. we can't fix the immigration system either with deportations or with specious constitutional arguments which is exactly what republicans are trying to do today with the enforce act. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. rothfus: thank you, mr. chairman. and now our exceptional system of government, the house and senate pass the laws which the president must take care to faithfully execute. this is a bedrock principle of our constitution. president obama has repeatedly exceeded the boundaries of the executive powers allowed him in the constitution. we have worked to check this overreach in the house, but the president has unilaterally decided to ignore, waive and change laws without their authorization from congress.

notably, president obama has repeatedly created exemptions and delayed provisions to cover for the many broken promises of his health care law. the legislation under consideration today will grant the house and the senate the authority to file suit against the president to simply force him to carry out his constitutional duty and enforce the law. this should not be a partisan issue. the enforce the law act will protect all americans and our system of government from overreach by presidents of any political party. i thank the chairman and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i yield the gentlelady from nevada, ms. titus, two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. titus: thank you and thank you for the time. i rise today in opposition to both h.r. 4138, the so-called enforce act, and h.r. 3973, the

faithful execution of the law act. these bills reveal a republican majority that's more interested in undermining the president than serving the american people. these bills could undo the critical actions that president obama has taken to protect dreamers. it gives dreamers, including almost 10,000 who've applied in nevada, the chance to pursue their american dream. we should be encouraging these bright young people to explore their options and develop their talents, not to hideaway in the shadows. these bills would take that opportunity away. . the bills would also undermine another executive action that gives undocumented families of military members and veterans the chance to stay in the united states as long as they don't have a criminal record. do we really want to tear about the pay -- apart the famloifs

those who serve our nation? instead of taking step tice dress the problem ours country faces, we're wasting time with these cheap political gimmicks, these sham constitutional arguments. i urge my colleagues to reject those and vote against these harmful, unconstitutional bills. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from virginia is ecognized. mr. goodlatte: may i inquire how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has 6 3/4 minutes. the gentleman from michigan has five minutes. mr. good lat: at this time -- mr. goodlatte: at this time, i yield myself one minute. i want to respond to mr. conyers regarding his comment about lawsuits brought with regard to a subpoena when the democrats were in a majority. i want to point out and i'll ask at the appropriate time that the first page of each of four

lawsuits that were brought by the gentleman from michigan against three separate presidents, ronald w. reagan, george w. bush and interestingly, barack obama. i would only point out that this legislation simply, when there is consensus, as there was not in those cases, because only a few other members joined the gentleman, but when there's consensus in the entire body, the house or nat votes to bring a lawsuit this would do two things. it would expedite the process so we don't have it drag on for years and years like the fast and furious case has been dragging on and it would also make sure that only the standing issues that are in the united states constitution would be a bar to bringing the lawsuit and not court administered, court-created standing issues. mr. conyers: would the gentleman yield for just a moment?

mr. goodlatte: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina. the chair: the time of the gentleman from virginia has expired, the gentleman from south carolina. >> i want to thank my friend and colleague from the great state of south carolina, mr. tom rice, whose legal research and expertise and accrue men and leadership is one of the reasons we're here today. mr. gowdy: also i'm curious about this notion of prosecutorial discretion. i'm curious even though i was a prosecutor for 16 years, i guess i'm curious, mr. speaker, as to whether there are any limitations on this thing they call prosecutorial discretion. can the president refuse to enforce discrimination laws under that same theory of prosecutorial discretion? can the president refuse to enforce election laws under that same theory of cost due -- prosecutorial discretion, mr. speaker? how about term limits?

do we have to have an election in november? if he's well intentioned, as long as his heart is in the right place, if you can su spend other categories of laws, why not? if prosecutorial discretion is as broad as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want us to believe it is, are there any limits, mr. speaker, to this thing they call prosecutorial discretion? there are laws that prohibit conduct like laws against possession of child pornography. there are laws that require conduct, like filing a tax return in april. is the chief executive equally capable of suspending both categories of law, mr. speaker? is he? can he suspend those that require conduct as well as those that prevent conduct? i'm just trying to get an idea of what limits, if any, exist to this thing you call rosecutorial discretion.

hearing none, mr. speaker, i know a little bit about it. it's case by case. it's on the facts. it is not the wholesale refusal to enforce the law. with that, i yield back to the gentleman from virginia. the chair: the time of the gentleman from south carolina has expired, the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren, two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two inn miss. ms. lofgren: this isn't just about bringing a lawsuit. i think it's important to note on page 13, 14 of the committee report, item three, it says, in place. pansion of

that's the action used by the president to express statutory authority in the naturalization act to allow the wifes of american soldiers to not be deported. in july of 2010, a letter was sent to the department signed by nine democrats and nine republicans. i'd ask unanimous consent to put the letter into the record. and we said this. though many of the immigration issues experienced by our men and women in uniform require legislative action, congress has already given the tools to provide relief to these brave soldiers and their family. we urge you to consider deferred action to favorably exercise parole authority for close family members and fore bear from initiating rejuvenile certain cases. now this is nothing new. we have used parole authority pursuant to the immigration act the thful enforcement of

law to prevent cubans from being deported back to cuba since john f. kennedy was president of the united states and for the majority to suggest that keeping the wives of american soldiers who are under fire in afghanistan from being deported is, and i quote, an unlawful expansion of parole in place, i think is a truly shocking and i would say very distressing and disturbing phenomenon. we knew that the majority wanted to deport the dream act kids because they voted for the king amendment last year. when democrats took the dream act up for a vote, all but eight voted against it. but you want to deport the wives of american soldiers in afghanistan, i'm sorry, that's a new low. i yield back my time. the chair: the time of the gentlelady from california has expired. the letter to which she made reference will be placed in the

record under general leave. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt. the chair: the gentleman will be recognized for one minute. mr. hurt: i thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. i rise in support of the enforce act which reins in the growing problem of executive overreach in this administration and helps re-establish the checks and balances inherent in our constitution. our founders crafted the constitution with powers to the three branches of government. unfortunately, executive branch overreach has significantly increased in recent years. this overreach is so significant that this administration has not only ignored and undermined statutory requirement, it has made law without congressional consent. while the executive branch ndoubtedly has great powers,

the executive branch is not allowed to pick and choose which laws are enforced. this should not be a partisan issue but instead should focus on restoring the proper role of the executive to ensure that the laws of congress that are passed are faithfully executed. i urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation which restores the balance of power to our government and preserves the foundation of our constitution. i yield back my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman from virginia has expired this egentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, we're prepared to close if the other side is ready. mr. goodlatte: we have only one closing speaker remaining. if the gentleman is prepeared to close we'll close right after him. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself the plans of the time. ladies and gentlemen, let's acknowledge that this another on is really

attempt by some of the members here in the majority to prevent the president of the united states from implementing duly enacted legislative initiative this is a they oppose. it's rather unusual. but i want to ask my colleagues, friends, when is enough, enough? at what point can we say it's me to put away rhetoric of a partisan nature, of demagoguery and of synthetic scandals and start really working on the issues that many people in this country really want solutions o? we have constituents, and so do you, that are waiting for us to

take action on a host of problems that this house refuses to address. from securing fair pay for a ir day's work to extending nemployment insurance and also in the judiciary committee, fixing our broken immigration laws. and so, let's put aside some of the business that's gone on here today and finally get to work. mr. chairman, i reserve the alance of my time. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. this house has passed close to

200 bills that are piled up in the united states senate that create job, that promote domestic energy production, that reforms our out of control federal regulatory process in this country but it is also well worth taking our time to protect this institution's prerogatives and the people here in the people's house, we represent the interests of the people in this country and to uphold the powers, the article 1 powers of the house is vitally important. the constitution provides that all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the congress of the united states. yet the current administration has unilaterally sought to rewrite the law, not by working with the people's elected representatives but through blog posts like this one which removes penalties for employers who would otherwise be required to provide insurance coverage for their employees.

regulatory fact sheets like this one, which creates an entirely new category of businesses and exempts them from their responsibility under the law. and letters such as this one which acknowledge this is a people are having their health insurance terminated under obamacare in violation of the president's promise that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it, and then claims to suspend the law's insurance requirement to a date uncertain. this one letter alone suspends the application of eight key provisions of obamacare, namely those requiring fair health insurance premiums, guaranteeing the availability of coverage, guaranteeing renewable coverage, prohibiting exclusions for pre-existing conditions, prohibiting discrimination based on health status and others. why is this being done? to delay the terrible consequences of obamacare until after the next election. that is headline from the hill newspaper announced just last

week, new obamacare delay to help mid term democrats. move will avoid cancellation theesmsore election day actions are not supported by the united states constitution. it's time for congress and the judiciary to act. this bill would empower the congress and the judiciary to remind the president that ours is a system of government consisting of three separate one al branches, not branch control of our government. support the enforce the law act and restore the constitutional basis for the american system of government and the rule of law. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of an amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a

substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-43. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a subs institute shall be in order except those -- of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report. each may be offered only in the order printed in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 113-17 -- 378. for that purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i do. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 113-378 offered by mr. conyers of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 511, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. chairman. ladies and gentlemen of the house, my amendment would exclude actions to combat discrimination and protects civil rights enforcement from the scope of this bill before us. the last time we should want to do -- the last thing we should want to do as a congress is to pass legislation that makes it more difficult to protect our citizens' civil rights by executive action or otherwise. yet, if h.r. 4138 had been law,

several of the most critical civil rights milestones of our been subject e to congressional action under the court. in 1863, president abraham lincoln issued perhaps the most important executive order in our nation's history, the emancipation proclamation. and by this order, lincoln freed the slaves in those southern states that were engaged in military conflict with the union. by doing so, lincoln not only encouraged slaves to take up arms in fighting the civil war for the union, he also struck a blow for freedom that resonated around the world. by issuing the order, however, president lincoln made a decision to not enforce then

existing laws, protecting the institution of slavery, including the federal fugitive slave act. clearly history has shown lincoln's decision to be not only legal and a military turning point but morally correct, and clearly had the so-called enforce act been law, the emancipation proclamation could have been subject to an unnecessary and unhelpful legal challenge in the courts from the congress. another example, president truman's executive order of 9981 issued in 1948 that desegregated the united states military. with more than 125,000 african-americans serving overseas in world war ii, this

was a worthwhile and appropriate action by the president. nevertheless, by issuing this order, truman contraconveniented the then military policy -- contravened the then military policy of certain african-american military units from white units. had , had this bill before been law it would have permitted an unnecessary congressional legal challenge in the courts, and such a challenge would not have been politically unpopular in many quarters. remember that 1948 was the year that strom thurmoned bolted from the democratic -- strom thurmond bolted from the democratics and went on to carry four states and strongly competed in many others in the presidential election. i urge my colleagues on both

sides of the aisle to please consider the unintended consequences of the legislation before us, not only represent a permanent stain on the principle of separation of powers written by our founding fathers into the constitution but it would make it far more difficult to protect our citizens' civil rights and other constitutional protections. accordingly, i urge a yes vote to protect civil rights. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i oppose this amendment as it would allow the president to rewrite the civil rights laws on his own without any accountability in court.

the amendment, if adopted, would literally provide that nothing in the bill shall, quote, affect any action taken by the president, end quote, or by the head of any agency or indeed any action taken by any other officer or employee of the united states as regards the protections provided under the civil rights laws. if adopted, this amendment would immunize accountability in court this president and any president and other federal to oyees when they fail enforce the civil rights laws as written. what if a president decides certain groups should not be protected under the civil rights laws and fails to enforce those laws to protect certain groups? indeed, what if any entry-level employee of the federal government decides the civil rights laws should not be enforced to protect certain groups that are protected under the clear terms of the civil rights laws? this amendment, if adopted, would immunize the president or any entry-level employee of the executive branch from

accountability. in fact, this amendment stands for the very policy this bill opposes. this bill provides for holding accountable the president or any other federal employee whenever they fail to faithfully execute the law. this amendment, in stark contrast, would prevent the federal courts from ordering the president and other federal officials to enforce the civil rights laws when they are failing to faithfully execute them. it was a sad bay when members of this house stood -- day when the members of the house stood up and applauded the president when he said in his state of the union that he would circumvent congress when the people's elected representatives opposed his proposals. and when a senior member of the senate called on the president to stop unilaterally enforcing the law against certain individuals if bills were not passed by september, as senator schumer did last thursday. it's another sad day when an amendment is offered to explicitly shield the president

or any other federal employee from accountability when their actions are not authorized by the laws enacted by the ople's elected representatives. the president should not be above the law, and by that i mean any law, not the least of which are the civil rights laws of the united states. because this amendment would codify the terrible policy of allowing the president carte blanch to enforce or not enforce civil rights laws he deems fit, it should be opposed by every member of this body, especially those that would like to see the civil rights laws protect everyone as they are written. >> if the gentleman will yield? mr. goodlatte: be happy to yield. >> isn't it true, sir, that the language that you read from the president says nothing in this bill means that if the amendment were passed the ability of the congress of the courts to enforce the law against the president would be exactly the same as if the bill didn't pass? mr. nadler: it wouldn't immunize the president from

current law. it would immunize him from whatever new thing the bill would do but not from the current law and whatever ability the courts have to restrain a president from not enforcing civil rights laws right now? mr. goodlatte: reclaiming my time. the amendment is clear that it would prohibit the language of the bill from bringing a lawsuit when the president fails to enforce the civil rights laws. mr. speaker, i oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia has yielded back. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the question now is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor will say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule

18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 113-378. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 113-378 offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 511, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, my amendment adds a new section to the bill to ensure that the president retains the well-established constitutional authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion when enforcing our laws. h.r. 4138 would either -- would

empower either the house or the senate to file a lawsuit whenever one house disagrees with how the executive branch is implementing a law. the bill applies to enforcement decisions made by any officer or employee of the united states. thus, every decision across hundreds of thousands of, quote, federal statutes, rules, regulations, programs, other laws, closed quote. h.r. 3148 is a practical night mayor. it has policy disagreements that do not raise any constitutional concerns. we need look no further than the examples cited by the sponsors of this bill to see this is true. far from representing a violation of the take care clause, president obama's decision to delay, not to refuse, enforcement of various deadlines under the affordable care act are reasonable implementation decisions that are designed to ensure the ultimate success of the president's signature law. delaying implementation of part of a complex law is not unusual.

similarly, the administration setting of immigration nforcement priorities raises no legitimate constitutional concern. the administration's decision to provide temporary relief from removal for certain dreamers, young adults brought to the united states as children, complies with congressional's directive to establish immigration enforcement priorities and for the exercise under the take care clause. while my colleagues now seek to drag the courts into political disputes, the fact of the matter is no court has ever found delaying implementation of a law or the routine exercise of criminal or civil enforcement powers to cons constitute a violation of the -- constitute a violation of the take care clause. lawsuits brought by congress 41inst the president, h.r. 78 violates laws.

the enforce act would -- against whom, why and even whether to prosecute violations of the law. in heckler vs. cheney, they recognized an agency's refusal to institute proceedings shares to some extent the characteristics the decisions of the prosecutor in the executive branch not to indict. a decision which has long been regarded as a special provens of the executive branch in as much as it is the executive who's charged with the constitution to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. the injection of congress into the courts in the constitution squarely commits to the president's decision raises significant separation of powers concerns. it also lies been the purview of the courts to accept any such case under the supreme court's injuries prudence. in baker vs. carter, the courts cannot and will not interfere in matters of the constitution commits to a coordinate branch of government. my amendment seeks to mitigate

the constitutional encroachment of the president's authority to faithfully execute the law by adding a new subsection d to ensure nothing in h.r. 4138 limits or otherwise affects the clearly constitutional authority of the executive branch to exercise prosecutorial discretion, closed quote. my amendment cures one of the many constitutional infermities. i urge my colleagues to support it and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, mr. nadler's amendment purports to clarify that nothing in this legislation limits or otherwise affects prosecutorial discretion. if this amendment is adopted, it will only serve to cause confusion regarding the scope of the president's duty under the take care clause and the ability of congress to bring a lawsuit pursuant to this legislation. the underlying bill provides

that the house or senate may authorize a lawsuit based upon adoption of a resolution declaring that the executive branch, quote, established or implemented a formal or informal policy, practice or procedure to refrain from enforcing, end quote, federal law in violation of the take care clause. adoption of a policy, practice or procedure is not an exercise in prosecutorial discretion. rather, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion involves the determination as to whether a particular individual or entity should be the subject of an enforced action for past conduct. in other words, nothing in this bill limits prosecutorial discretion, thus, inserting in the bill an exception for the undefined term prosecutorial discretion would only serve to cause confusion. worse, including an exception for prosecutorial discretion would also allow the executive branch to move to dismiss every case brought pursuant to this bill on the grounds that it was

merely exercising prosecutorial discretion. this would result in costly and wasteful delays in the court's ability to decide the merits of these important separation of powers disputes in a timely manner. additionally, if adopted, the amendment would cause confusion as to the meaning of the take care clause itself. the clause imposes an affirmative duty on the president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. this amendment proposes to interpret that duty by codifying into statutory law that there is a constitutional authority of the executive branch to exercise prosecutorial discretion. however, unlike the duty imposed by the take care clause, the words prosecutorial discretion appear nowhere in the text of the constitution. we should not place an undefined limit to the take care clause in the united states code. finally the amendment would act

to prohibit courts from further refining the contours of appropriate prosecutorial discretion. it does not seek to put entire cat goifers subjects offlimits from review by the federal courts. i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the jlt from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman from new york has one and a half minutes. mr. nadler: i yield the gentlelady from california one minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. lofgren: this is about supporting the dream act students. on page 13 of the committee report, the majority calls out for condemnation the exercise of prosecutorial discretion relative to the dreamers. it's quite a departure from when republicans joined with democrats to that it is well established that prosecutorial

discretion can be used in immigration cases and asking that guidelines be developed and implemented and used for categories of individuals. n fact, the discretions in prosecutorial discretion comes from the take care clause. that's what the supreme court has told us, that's the guidance we have from the highest law in the land. what this is really about, mr. speaker, is about the majority's apparently vovashese -- voracious appetite to deport these young people. that's why the deportation of dreamers is called out in the committee report, it's why they oppose prosecutorial discretion. i think it is quite a shame. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expire. the gentleman from new york has 30 seconds remaining. mr. nadler: may i inquire how

much time each side has? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has two and a half minutes remaining. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. chairman. prosecutorial discretion encompasses the ability to decide whether to seek punishment or penalties. this part is important. it does not include the authority to seek other advantages. i have heard about immigration, i haven't talked about immigration. i want to talk about mandatory minimums in drug cases. you have x amount of methamphetamine, you get x amount of time in prison. re you telling me the phrase prosecutorial discretion includes the attorney general

telling his prosecutors to disregard the law, not to not prosecute the case, that would be skipt. he's not telling them not to prosecute the case, he's telling them don't inform the judiciary of the drug allowance. that is not prosecutorial discretion. that is anarchy. so yes, mr. nadler, i agree, or my friend with new york, i agree, mr. speaker, with the concept of prosecutorial discretion, i used it for 16 years. but your amendment does not define it. and my fear is while my friend from new york may never -- would never do this, my fear is some may overread it to incrude allowing a president to disregard obligations we place on him or her and under no theory of prosecutorial discretion is that legal. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. chairman, i don't have the time to answer all mr. gowdy's arguments except

to say that if this bill were to pass, which it won't because the senate won't look at it but if the bill twor pass if my amendment were adopted, it would make it easier for the courts to define what prosecutorial discretion is and is not. i'm confident they'd agree with mr. gowdy about what isn't prosecutorial discretion. but then you could get a judicial determination as who to the what prosecutorial discretion is and what it isn't. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, for the reasons cited, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment which would gut the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i ask for a roll call vote.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postpone the committee will rise informally to receive a message. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the speaker: i'm directed by the president -- the secretary: i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting.

the chair: the committee will be in order. it is now in order to consider amendment number three printed in part a of house report 113-378. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three printed in part a of house report 113-378, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 511, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chairman very much. fragly, maybe i should offer a good thanks to the distinguished members of the majority. the republicans. my chairman and others. for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this

nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years, operating under a constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not. the enforcement act is not constitutional but it gives us an opportunity to raise these issues. that's what freedom is. that's what the opportunity of democracy is all about. the jackson lee amendment engages in this discussion to reinforce that there are constitutional problems with the enforce act. my amendment excludes from the scope of the bill any executive action take ton comply with judicial decisions to interpret the constitution or federal law. the amendment would ensure that one house of congress could not initiate dilatory legal channels when executive actions were take ton comply with the judicial decision. a couple of weeks ago, i believe in the month of february, the speaker of the house came light and gave a

appointing serious issue when they announced they were prepared to move forward with discussions on immigration reform. thenless than five days later, the speaker tookt airwaves and indicated that the offer of bipartisanship has been pulled down because of the trust question of the president of the united states. mr. chairman, i cannot tell you what happened in those five days. the president led the country, the president provided for the country. the president listened to the american people. and the president has been the commander in chief, the president has provided that kind of fiscal responsibility, working on the omnibus, the budget, and i don't know what happened. but what i will say to you is, i can see no reason for this kind of legislation to come to the floor of the house and to be poke a spear if you will in the eye of article 2 that says executive power shall be vested in the president of

the united states of america. this president has that power my amendment will ensure that whatever passes here allows the president to be able to handle the business of the american people through judicial and federal statutes without interference. i'd ask my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. goodlatte: in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. i oppose this amendment as it would gut the bill. read the text of the amendment. the amendment would explicitly prohibit the bill from affecting the executive branch's compliance with judicial decisions interpret degree constitution or federal laws but that's exactly the point of the base bill. the base bill encourages the courts to decide constitutional issues relating to the constitution's separation of powers between the branches of government. we would, of course, expect the president ooba -- obey those

decisions from the court yet this amendment would grant the president the authority to defy those very court decisions by making sure that the president did not have to be quote affected, end quote, by this. this amendment only adds insult to injury. it would take a bill designed to encourage the federal courts to engage in the constitutional issues of the day and amend it to explicitly allow the president to defy the digs of those courts there is no reason to exempt court decisions from the bill's coverage. the base bill allows -- allows congress bring lawsuits that the president failed to faithfully execute the law. the president is obligated to follow federal court decisions to the same extent he must follow federal statute, treaty obligation, and of course the constitution itself. rather than furthering the bill's goal of enforcing the take care clause, the amendment would create an enormous loophole in the bill's coverage so i must urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman

reserve? mr. goodlatte: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentlewoman has minutes. half ms. jackson lee: let me make this point then i'll yield 15 seconds to the gentlelady from california. i thank the gentleman from virginia for his eloquence. obviously he is from the great state of thomas jefferson and i certainly am from the great law school of thomas jefferson, the university of virginia school of law but let me just say that what this bill intends to tchork power they have bill purports to assign to congress to sue the president over whether he has discharged his obligation to take care that the law be faithfully executed he feel knows that exceeds any constitutional boundaries. he's challenging the president on decision this is a they don't agree with that are political. they don't agree with deferred adjudication. they don't agree with the dream act youngsters. they don't agree we should move forward on immigration reform. they are challenging him on his

right to exert his power. i yield 15 seconds to the gentlelady from california. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 15 seconds. ms. lofgren: mr. chairman, i agree with the amendment. i would note that the late henry hyde signed the letter urging for prosecutorial discretion, that is part of the law, recognized by the supreme court in the arizona case, i do not believe that the late henry hyde would have urged the administration to do something that did not comport with the constitution or the law and i would ask unanimous consent to put this letter into the record. the chair: the request of the gentlewoman from california will be covered by general leave. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, may i ask the time remaining? the chair: the gentlelady has a minute and a quarter left. ms. jackson lee: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from

virginia. mr. goodlatte: i believe i have ea right to close, if that's correct, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman is correct, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i want to ask the chairman, there's no other speakers, mr. chairman? thank you. as i indicated, this is a political fight. i thought that we had settled that fight with baker v. karr a case that hails from 1962, baker stands for the proposition that courts are not equipped to adjudicate -- adjudicate political questions and it is impossible to decide such questions. now our friends want to give congress the right to expedite their lawsuit over the average citizen on a political question first in a three-judge court and then right to the supreme court of the united states while the mesh -- american people suffer because they want that particular position. it's a political question. because it's the republicans who want to be able to move beyond the authority given to the constitution. i'd like to yield the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. conyers: thank you very muc

mr. conyers: thank you, because this is an important amendment, and it doesn't gut the bill and it isn't a loophole. this is a narrow amendment that only ensures that the president can comply with court decisions. separation of powers principle is very important and this amendment clarifies and adds to it. i thank the gentlelady. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. ms. jackson lee: i thank you very much to the gentleman for that very astute analysis. i want to conclude, if i might, by saying that i respect the separation of powers. i understand what my colleagues, mr. conyers is very right. this amendment does not gut the legislation, but i understand what my colleagues are saying and what i would argue is we all want the same thing, that the authority of the president remains that, the congress, the judiciary, and there's no

exceeding. i believe we can do it in a better way. i ask my colleagues to support the jackson lee amendment. the chair: the time of the gentlewoman has expired. the question is now on the amendment offered by -- i'm sorry. the gentleman from virginia is recognized to close. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. that's all right. i'll be brief and just say for the reasons already cited, this is a very harmful amendment. it would gut the bill. for that reason i oppose it and ask my colleagues to oppose it and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time is yielded back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. jackson lee: on that, mr. chairman, i'd like a request for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 113-378.

for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 113-378 offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 511, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. chairman. clearly, as my colleagues have noted, the enforce act is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. it would give any legislative majority a blank check to challenge in court by filing a lawsuit any decision of the executive branch that it disagrees with. instead of considering legislation to create jobs, to fix our broken immigration system, repair our crumbling infrastructure or raise the minimum wage, today the majority has brought to this

floor a partisan measure to increase only one thing -- congressional litigation. the bill raises serious constitutional questions and fails to put into place responsible safeguards to prevent abuse. this, i believe, mr. chairman, is a dangerous attack that threatens the careful balance of power developed by our founding fathers. and at a time when the american people have lost so much confidence in congress, my republican colleagues are offering yet another bill that will do nothing to improve the lives of americans. instead, this bill will only add to the american people's scorn and ridicule of congress. just what we need, more contention, more division here in congress by encouraging congressional lawsuits. but in addition to its questionable purpose and substantive defects, the enforce act also fails to adequately protect taxpayer money as it would open the floodgates of litigation for any executive branch decision that any mib of the chamber

disagrees with it and that is why i'm offering my amendment today which would offer quarter reporting with the costs associated with the litigation under this act. it would require the comptroller general of the united states to issue quarterly reports from the house judiciary committees on the cost of litigation actions brought pursuant to this action, including any attorneys' fees. since many of my colleagues have brelf and routinely expressed significant concern of ensuring taxpayer dollars are used appropriately and carefully, one would expect the enforce act to have transparency provisions in place. however, it does not. that's why i urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which would provide a transparent quarterly accounting of the costs of pursuing legal action under the act. as many of my colleagues know, litigation can be extremely expensive, so let's make sure that members of congress and public to know how much taxpayer money is being spent.

climate ursement exists, to prix o'provide timely and transparent closure -- for example, over the last few years, the house of representatives, at the direction of the majority and over strong objections by leader pelosi and whip hoyer, hired outside counsel to defend the defense of marriage act. it has grown to a series of contract extensions to be up to $3 million. and it's hard to determine at what point and at what cost the majority's pursuits will end. today, nine months since the supreme court struck down it as unconstitutional, we don't know how much the house majority has spent on defending this discriminatory law or whether it continues to spend taxpayer funding on this matter. as minority members of the house administration committee

reported during this legal challenge in 2002, and i quote, no one seems to know where the funds are coming from. there's been no appropriation for this expense. there's been no mention of the funding source and the contract extension. there's no record of payment being made in the statement of dispersements, end quote. clearly they are insufficient to inform members of congress and the general public of the litigation dispursements. and while they may disagree on the merits of doma and the legislation before us today, we should all recognize that neither side nor the public service is served by obscuring the disclosure of litigation expenses. therefore, i urge my colleagues to support my amendment, a simple reporting requirement that will safeguard transparency to ensure that spending under this very misguided legislation is made clear. i thank and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. goodlatte: mr. chairman, i rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment even though i do not oppose the

amendment. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. goodlatte: thank you. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, i will support the adoption of this amendment. this amendment basically codifies at least as far as the house of representatives is concerned requirements that already exists reporting the cost of litigation. when the house engages in litigation, the cost of that litigation are already reported to the house appropriations committee and the committee on house administration. this amendment merely expands these existing reporting requirements to include the general accountability office. had the gentleman from rhode island prefiled this amendment during judiciary committee consideration of the bill, we may have been able to accept it during markup. however, without notice of the amendment, we were not able to determine at markup whether the amendment implicated any attorney-client privilege concerns. we are now satisfied, given existing reporting requirements, that this amendment does not present a privileged problem. and for these reasons i support

the adoption of this amendment, urge my colleagues to do so and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. cicilline: i thank the chairman for his support and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i yield back as well. the chair: all time having been yielded back, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part a of house report 113-378 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order -- amendment number 1 by mr. conyers of michigan, amendment number 2 by mr. nadler of new york, amendment number 3 by ms. jackson lee of

texas. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic voting after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 113-378 by the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 113-378 offered by mr. conyers of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this will be a pifment vote. -- will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 188, the nays are 227. he amendment is not adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in -- a of house report 13 113-378 by the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, on which further protings were postponed -- proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 113-378 offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: a recorded veat has been requested -- vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is

expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 190rk the nays are 25, the amendment -- are 225 the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number three printed n part a of house report 113-378 by the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three printed in part a of house report 113-378 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has

been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 185, the nays are 231. the motion is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union report that the committee s had under consideration -- the speaker pro tempore: mr. hairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 4138, reports t back to the house.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports the bill has had under consideration h.r. 4138 and pursuant to house resolution 5 is 1 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? hearing none, the clerk will designate. if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to protect the separation of powers in the constitution of the united states by ensuring that the president takes care that the laws be faithfully executed and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i'm opposed, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. please cease all discussions

during the motion to recommit. please cease your discussions. he house will be in order. lease cease all discussions. the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. ruiz of california moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 4138, to the committee on the judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. the chair: for what purpose does he gentleman rise? mr. gowdy: i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is reserve the clerk will continue. the clerk: add at the end of the bill the following, section three, prect -- protecting states' rights. nothing in this act limits the action of the president, a head of a department or agency of the

united states or officer or employee of the united states in order to prevent an unconstitutional intrusion into state's rights, section four, estoring unemployment benefits for unemployed workers. this shall not take effect until the percentage of those receiving unemployment benefits when they are actively seek work is at least equal to the percentage receiving benefits for 2013 as determined by the department of labor's quorterly u.i. summary measurement of the ate for all u.i. programs. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ruiz: thank you, mr. speaker. s the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will

immediately proceed to final passage as amended. right now, house leadership is focused -- is forcing a vote on a bill they know will go nowhere. instead of working to find pragmatic solutions to our most pressing problems, they have chosen to put politics above the needs of the american people. they have chosen to put politics above jobs. the economy. health care. comprehensive immigration reform. and again, they are playing politics with millions of hardworking families who have lost their job through no fault of their own and are currently ooking for jobs. the chair: the gentlelady is correct, the house is not in order. it is now in order. mr. ruiz: thank you. currently over two million people have lost unemployment insurance because of these political games.

every week, 72,000 people on average are losing their unemployment benefits nationwide while they are looking for jobs. in my home state of california, almost 350,000 people are living on the brink of financial disaster because of these games. this is exactly the kind of political gameman -- gamesmanship the american people are sick and tired of. house leadership continues to refuse to restore these vital economic lifeline that helps people support their families and pay their bills while they look for a new job. long-term unemployment remains an enormous challenge for millions of americans and our overall economy which is exactly why we should put the american people first and renew this important program. we need a foe -- we need to focus on creating new jobs and help american families temporarily weather the storm. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. gowdy: i withdraw the point of order and rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the reservation is withdrawn and the secret is recognized for five minutes. mr. gowdy: i want to talk for a moment as colleagues, not as republicans or democrats, not as members of the majority or the minority, but colleagues who are blessed to serve in the united states house of representatives. the people's house. with all their tradition, with all the history, with all the laws that have been passed, with all the lives that have been impacted. i want us to talk as colleagues because our foundational document gave us, as the house, unique powers and responsibilities. rerun every two years because they ended -- intended for us to be closest to the people. the president was given different duties and powers.

the president was given the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. so my question, mr. speaker, is what does that mean to you? that the laws be faithfully executed? we know the president can veto a bill for any reason or no reason. we know the president can refuse to defend the constitutionality of a statute, even one he signs into law. we know the president can issue pardons for violations of the very law this is a we pass. and we know that the president -- for the very laws that we pass. and we know the president has prosecutorial discretion as evidenced and used through his u.s. attorneys. that is a lot of power. what are we to do when that amount of power is not enough? what are we to do when this president or any president decides to selectively enforce a portion of a law and ignore other portions of that law?

. what do we do when a president nullifies our vote by failing to faithfully execute the law? how do we explain waivers and exemptions and delays and a bill passed by congress and affirmed by the united states supreme court? how do we explain away a refusal to enforce mandatory minimums that were passed by congress and affirmed by the supreme court? and why pursue, mr. speaker, immigration reform if presidents can turn off the very provisions that we pass? you know, in the oath that brand new citizens take, it contains six different references to the law. if it's good enough for us to ask brand new citizens to affirm their devotion to the law, is it too much to ask that the president do the same?

if a president can change some laws, can he change all laws? can he change election laws? can he change discrimination laws? are there any laws under your theory that he actually has to enforce? what is our recourse, mr. speaker? what is our remedy? some would argue the framers gave us the power of the purse and the power of impeachment, but, mr. speaker, those are punishments, those are not remedies. what is the remedy if we want the executive to enforce our work? this bill simply gives us standing with when our votes are nullified. this bill allows us to petition the judicial branch for an order requiring the executive branch to faithfully execute the law. mr. speaker, we are not held in high public esteem right now. maybe members of congress would

be respected more if we respected ourselves enough to require that when we pass something it be treated as law. maybe we would be more respected if we had a firmly rooted expectation that when we pass something as law it be treated as law. maybe we would be more respected if we put down party labels and debt sire to keep or retain or acquire gavels and picked up the history, the tradition and the honor of this, the people's house. mr. speaker, the house of representatives does not exist to pass suggestions. we do not exist to pass ideas. we make law and while you are free to stand and clap, when any president comes into this hallowed chamber and promises to do it with or without you, i will never stand and clap.

when any president, no matter whether he's your party or mine , promises to make us a constitutional anomly and an afterthought, we make law. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> mr. speaker, on that i demand a record vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted.

a sufficient number having -- record record -- record -- a recorded vote is now ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage of the bill. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on his vote the yeas are --

the speaker pro tempore: on -- vote the yeas are 186

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 187, the nays are 228. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. , the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, on that i ask for a record vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. a sufficient number having arisen -- those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this will be a five minute d vote. -- a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 233. the nays are 181.

the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a co-sponsor of h.r. 3633. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that representative randy forbes be taken off of h.r. 1239, the accessing medicare therapies act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 511, i call up h.r. 3973 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar bill 280, h.r. 3973, a to amend section 350-d of title 28, united states code. the speaker pro tempore: prubte to house resolution 511, an

amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-42 is as adopted. the bill, as amended, is considered as read. after one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed in part b of house report 113-378 if offered by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes adequately divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren, ach will control 30 minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. franks: madam speaker, i would ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 3973, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. franks: madam chair, i would now recognize the distinguished chairman of the full judiciary committee, mr. goodlatte from virginia, and yield him such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, article 2, section 3 of the united states constitution declares that the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. however, president obama has failed on many occasions to enforce acts of congress that he disregards -- that he disagrees with for policy reasons and has stretched his regulatory authority to put in place policies that congress has refused to enact. although president obama is not

the first president to stretch his powers beyond their constitutional limits, executive overreach has accelerated at an alarming rate under his administration. to help prevent executive overreach and require greater disclosure when it occurs, representative desantis introduced h.r. 3973, the faithful execution of the law act. i want to thank representative desantis for introducing this commonsense legislation to ensure that there is greater transparency and disclosure regarding the executive branch's enforcement of federal law. the justice department is currently required by law to report to congress whenever it decides to adopt a policy to refrain from enforcing federal law on the grounds that the law in question is unconstitutional. the faithful execution of the law act strengthens this provision by requiring the attorney general to report to congress whenever a federal official establishes or

implements a formal or informal policy to refrain from enforcing a federal law. and the reason for the nonenforcement, regardless of whether it is being done on constitutional or policy grounds. as professor jonathan turley observed regarding this legislation in testimony before the judiciary committee, quote, it is hard to see the argument against such disclosures. too often congress has only been informed of major changes by leaks to the media, end quote. congress should not have to rely on media leaks and other unofficial sources to find out that the executive branch has decided not to enforce federal laws. congress cannot possibly know the extent of executive branch nonenforcement of the laws without mandatory disclosure of all nonenforcement policies by the person who should be fully aware of such policies, namely, the attorney general, the nation's chief law enforcement officer. passage of h.r. 3973 is

essential if congress is going to play an active role in overseeing that the separation of powers between the branches is maintained and that the president is faithfully executing the laws. i thank the gentleman from arizona, the chairman of the subcommittee, for yielding me this time and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: recognize myself for such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cohen: thank you, madam speaker. more the same. as with our consideration of he, quote, enforce act, h.r. 4138, i must note the lack of a deliberate tiff process pertaining to the -- delib are tiff process pertaining -- deliberative process pertaining

to consideration of this bill. the gentleman talked about process and process can be important. provide sess was not important on this bill. wasn't important on the other bill. like that other bill, the judiciary committee failed to hold a single legislative hearing. process, you have a hearing, people come in and talk, experts. then, you have a markup -- the subcommittee. the subcommittee has a hearing and they have a markup and then you have a hearing and a markup in the full committee. this one not a herring in the subcommittee, not -- hearing in the subcommittee, not a hearing in the full committee. simply all of a sudden, presto, markup. process, nicked. that's how we came with the last bill and this bill. when coupled with the fact that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle provided only a minimum notice regarding the bill, it's hard to believe this

is a serious attempt to legislate because it tramples on the legislative process, the rights of the members to have a notice, the rights of the public to have a notice and the rights of experts testifying. and this is what happens when you don't follow regular order which is due process, notice and a hearing. we do the same thing here. here are just a few of the problems with this bill. h.r. 3973 would impose burdensome and wasteful requirements on the justice department to the detriment of its law enforcement functions. probably have to hire new personnel, increase the debt which, of course, the other side talks about being passed onto the next generation. section 530-d of title 38 f 28 -- 38-d, united states code, any instance in which the attorney general or any justice department official establishes a formal or informal policy

against enforcele, applying or administering on the grounds such provision is unconstitutional. and there are 94 u.s. attorneys and a whole bunch of agency heads and a whole bunch of cabinet members and folks. current law, therefore, allows an administration to refuse to enforce the law in the extremely limited circumstance where a law is deemed unconstitutional. no other reason is sufficient. 3973 fails to define exactly which individuals in the federal government would qualify as a, quote, federal officer. there is nowhere in the usca that i have seen -- and we've reverend it -- where this congress has defined a federal officer and yet we're instructing federal officers. now, the courts might have had some jibberish but this congress never did. as a result of this oversight, the attorney general would have to review enforcement decisions by hundreds if not thousands of individuals who work in the executive branch and may qualify as officers in order to

determine whether their decisions trigger something in this bill. this would drain already limited resources. the justice department for its law enforcement responsibilities which is as charged. the majority's real purpose of h.r. 3973 is to prevent the president's implementation of duly enacted legislative initiatives that they oppose nd to stymie the president's consideration and enforcing laws. allowing implementation of a new program is neither unusual nor a constitutional violation and it's administered to -- administration to administration to administration. the president to take care and faithfully execute the laws and enforcement discretion is the traditional power of the executive. . . the supreme court has held that it's a function of the

president's power and this principle is reiterated in in the court in arizona versus united states. it is true if they want to reach decision. and h.r. 3973, requiring the attorney general to report on every decision to congress. you can't enforce every law to the fullest and people make decisions on which are the most important and which are prioritized. a professor, a minority witness on this -- on the judiciary committee, noted, number of such enforcement decisions is too numerous to count. given the foregoing, i must it rate that this is a waste of time especially when there are other more pressing concerns to address.

how many times have we had people call us and say they need unemployment compensation and don't have money to buy food for their child or themselves and provide shelter and yet unemployment insurance has lapsed. how many times have people said they want to work and get a job. we haven't passed an infrastructure bill. mr. bill young worked well on getting these bills done. we don't have bills to put people to work. how many times have people come up and talked to us about their concerns about health care when we could be coming together and finding ways to make health care more affordable. giving a lot of people health care they otherwise didn't have. in my district, the differential between african-american women and white women and morbidity on

cancer is the greatest. and african-american women are more likely to die of breast cancer than white women. it's not in their genes. they have not had access to facilities to get checkups and get treated. they don't have the ability to get to health centers which have been funded through the affordable care act and to get insurance. t they haven't gotten it and they have died. sometimes because they don't have transportation to get to the doctors and that's because of our limited resources we have put in funding mass transit. so many areas that we have neglected that we should be dealing with now, on health care issues, on the environment, on immigration. taking people out from the shadows and putting people to work where they pay taxes and

young people who were brought here with their parents who can stay here and participate and fulfill their dream and potential, work hard and play by the rules. we're not doing that. instead of using this limited legislative time we've got, this is an opportunity to bash immigrants, rail against giving health insurance to those who need it. we should be addressing the broken system we have on immigration, helping struggling homeowners and students buried in debt and fighting discrimination, among many other challengeses facing our great nation. allowing opportunity to vote rather than taking voting rights away from them. trying to deny the people to vote under the veil of identity. we are doing a disservice to the american people on issues that are not issues and not going to

pass the senate and work with each other. i have reached out to members on the other side and said why don't we find common grouped and pass something? they look at me and say, i get my orders, too. unfortunately, the orders aren't working for the american people. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. ms. frankel: i now yield myself such time as i may consume and i begin by pointing out contrary to the gentleman's assertion, the term federal officer is mentioned 238 times in the federal code and the dictionary defines officer and includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office. and contrary to some of the ther discussions, this bill is ocused that we

>> it's inherent i suppose in the nature of washington, d.c., politics at a certain point all of the back and forth discussion turns into white noise and the continual reporting and blaming is so commonplace that most americans tune it out entirely. just as the partisanship in washington causes so many to tune out the substance of the debate, so do we also become accustomed to hearing lofty rhetoric in illusions to our funding fatters. i hope we listen to the men, because the challenges we face were not unforeseen. james madison expressed his concern that eventually the rule of law might not be able to

restrain those who had a mind to abuse the power of their office. he said, quote, will it be sufficient to mark with precision the boundaries of these departments and the constitution of the government and to trust to these barriers against the encroaching spirit of power. experience assures us that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly overrated and some more adequate defense is necessary for the more feeble against the more powerful members of the government. madison originally published this paper in 1788 and used the title, these departments should not be so far separated so as to not have control over each other. he expressed these 12 years after america declared its independence and in the intervening 226 years these abuses have spiraled out of

control. i would urge americans to ask themselves, has this administration moved our nation back toward the nobel dream imagined by men like madison when all laws were enforced and all people were equal under those laws or has this administration worsened the trend madison detected so early on? president obama infamously said on this very floor, quote, we are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure we are providing americans with the kind of help they need. i have got a pen and i have a phone and i can use that pen to take administrative actions that move the ball forward, unquote, to which i would humbly respond, no, he can't. not if what he is doing is and ro debating the constitution of the united states. that is the overreach that madison warned us about and

exactly what we are referencing when we talk about a quote, imperial presidency. we are dealing with a president who has admitted he would prefer to be unconfined by constitutional limitations. he specifically said, wherever and whenever i can take steps without legislation, that's what i'm going to do, closed quote. madam speaker, they say to be forewarned is to be forearmed, this president has not been shy to go beyond the constitution when he is inclined. the i.r.s. has become a political tool used against those who oppose the president's policies. the justice department has adopted a policy of selective law enforcement, essentially rewriting the law by only enforcing the ones they prefer. the senate's role in the appointment process has been ignored with the administration making so-called recess appointments even though the senate was not in recess.

the legislative branch has been deemed little more than an inconvenient hurdle with legislation like the dream act and obamacare either being imposed by fiat or grossly and repeatedly modified without the input, consent or action on the part of congress. we have seen reporters' phone records, reported spying, even on members of congress and attempting to force small businesses to disclose their political affiliations before being considered for federal contracts. at what point, madam speaker, do we say, enough is enough? i would remind all of us of the words of daniel webster to all americans when he said quote, hold on my friends to the constitution and for the republic for which it stands, for miracles do not cluster. and what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again. so hold onto the constitution for the american constitution

should fall, there will be anarchy throughout the world, unquote. madam speaker, the faithful execution of the law act is one very important step in the right direction. this bill will help prevent executive overreach and require greater disclosure when it does occur. i thank my colleague for bringing this legislation forward and chairman goodlatte for his leadership for bringing this to light and i would urge my colleagues to support this bill. and i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: i would like to comment on a couple of things without disrespect to our founding fathers and revere them all alike, mr. frank was talking about madison and asked the question, all people were equal under the law, except for

african-americans who were slaves and people who couldn't pay a poll tax and women. so let's get away from this perspective of the way the world was and get to where the way the world should be and daniel webster has a quote up there to develop our resources and this land and institutions, so while we are here, in our day, in our generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered. we aren't doing that today. and the references to the i.r.s. were debunked and equally applied to people who used organizations beyond their original purpose. it was not anything political and that goes to show the basic nature of this because it's another attack on the president of the united states. and the president said whenever i can take action without legislation, when he can take it without legislation when he's permitted. with that, i yield to ms.

lofgren such time as she may consume the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lofgren: either this bill does nothing because it is vague or does something that is a serious problem. you know, in the committee reports of this bill, it specifically calls out as something that's wrong the dream act. and apparently suggesting that the dreamers should be deported. now i don't believe that what happened with the dreamers, the deferred action, was beyond the president's authority. and i have this letter here that was sent in 1999, signed by the late henry hyde and two republicans who went on to chair the judiciary committee, mr. smith, and mr. sensenbrenner, urging then president clinton to do the same thing that president obama has now done, which is to come up with actual standards

that apply. so i don't think that this bill should change that. but let's say it does. let's say that we would have to report each time a dreamer applies for deferred action. i think what we're talking about is 500,000 or so dreamers, their names and addresses would have to be reported into the congress. is that what we really want to do, to have all those kids be reported in to the congress? and let's talk about another thing mentioned, specifically page 14 in the committee report, the so-called point three, unluffle extension of parole and place. what the president did as prior presidents have done is to parole the immediate family, the husbands and wives of american

soldiers who are in immigration trouble and the reason for that and the military asks us to do this, the last thing you want, you have a soldier in afghanistan dodging bullets, you don't want that soldier worrying about what is going to happen to his wife, the visa got lost and she's facing deportation. and so parole and place -- and we believe and i mentioned as a specific statutory authority to that decks 212-d-5 of the immigration act but the majority believes that it is unlawful. so what would this bill mean? i guess that all of the wives and husbands who are not deported and i guess their little children, their names and addresses should be reported into the congress. so i think we've got a little list here of people who are americans in every way but their papers, whose husbands are off

fighting for our country but we are going to create a list of them and i think they are going to feel exposed and at risk. i don't think if the bill does anything, it does something very dangerous and wrong. we should not vote for this. i oppose it. i oppose the deportation of the dreamers as the majority has asked be done in these two bills and i hope my colleagues vote against it. and i yield back. . mr. franks: i yield three minutes to the sponsor of the bill, mr. desantis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. desantis: i thank the chairman for that. i got to tell you, i'm listening to the other side, i don't know what world they're living in. we didn't have a hearing on the bill. i testified at the hearing. i don't think i made that up. i think that that happened. the idea that we're going to be reporting people's names and phone numbers for this bill,

no, the attorney general will go and say we established a policy not to enforce obamacare mandates, for example, because we have a situation now where these policies are illegal under the law. so if you actually looked up the law they would be illegal. but the executive branch said they won't enforce that for a couple of years. there's a divergent of the law that's in the books than the law that's in action. and that ultimately is what we're talking about here, you know. some people want different policy outcomes way one or another, but the important part of this is we're talking about power and we're talking about authority. i'd like to get the mandates off the book. as a matter of authority, the president cannot simply suspend that law that was enacted, and that ultimately is what we're talking about, clarity and how

the government is operating. ultimately, the power resides with the american people, not with members of congress or the president. the people loan power under the constitution and we exercise that authority consistent with the power they've delegated to us. we have the authority under article 1 of the constitution to legislate and we have the exclusive authority to legislate. the president has the duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. he does not have authority delegated him to amend, suspend or change duly enacted laws and this is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system that there are separated powers and checks and balances. george washington in his farewell addressed admonished the nation that to preserve these checks must be as necessary as to institute them. and the problem that i keep running into is i don't know what the limiting principle in some of these things are. if you can suspend the obamacare insurance mandates and you can suspend the

business mandate, you can suspend the individual mandate, can a republican president come in and just suspend the whole shabang? -- if not why not? make no mistake about it, when there is republican president, there will be pressure on that president to suspend provisions of law that those voters who elected that individual don't like. and if we start going back and forth where one side enforces what they like, the other side enforces what they like, then you really don't have a legislative body passing laws. we are essentially passing suggestions and then it's ultimately the executive who determines what will be enforced and what will not be enforced. that is not a road i think we ant to go down to. and this bill is saying, put your cards on the table. if you are not going to enforce certain provisions of law, then report it to congress and let us know about that. mr. franks: madam speaker, i'd yield the gentleman an additional three minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has an additional three minutes. mr. desantis: thank you, madam speaker. put your cards on the table. we in congress should not have to rely on a leak to the press or find a blog post or look in some footnote in some unrelated federal rule to know whether some of these things are being suspended. and the american people deserve to know whether or not their laws are being enforced. so at the end of the day this is really a transparency provision. it's worked with in terms of the constitutional questions, attorney general gonzalez, mukasey and holder have reported to the congress when the federal government has adopted policies and nonenforcement due to constitutional concerns. so this says if it you're going to take these -- the position that as a matter of policy you're not going to enforce, clear mandates in law, then provide that to us, offer your justification so we can evaluate it. now ltimately i think it's

just common practice here that a lot of these obamacare delays are done to help democrats in the mid term election, that maybe they won't lose as many seats if you can do that. well, i mean, this is stuff i think the american people need to know. that's a completely unacceptable reason to suspend laws. so ultimately i'd urge my colleagues to support this bill. the only way it could potentially be burdensome if there are people throughout the brokse that's not instituting policies left and right. they may be able to institute discretion on a case-by-case basis. i was a prosecutor. i couldn't just decide not to enforce drug laws anymore. so some of this stuff is a red herring. i thank the chairman for yielding me the time. i thank the chairman of the full committee for offering this bill, and i urge my colleagues to support it and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: thank you, madam speaker. first, i'd like to say that the federal officer may be mentioned many times in the code but not defined. not defined. and then i yield to ms. lofgren. ms. lofgren: i'd like to note -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. how much time would you like to yield to ms. lofgren? mr. cohen: all the time. ms. lofgren: thank you, madam chair. if you take a look at the actual statute that's being proposed here, it says the report shall be made by any federal officer undefined established or implements these policies to refrain. i would note -- it was hardly a secret when the deferred action program was started. it was a memorandum on june 15, 2012. it was made available to the committee and to congress, and it points out on page 2 that the exercise of prosecutorial

discretion will be made on an individual basis for those who fit within the category. so i think a plain -- if this means anything, and it may not because it's vague, it means that each time an individual receives the benefit of that prosecutorial discretion on a case-by-case basis they would have to be reported to the congress. now, what information would have to be reported? i don't know. presumably the name or the case file or the phone number. there are many john smiths in that group of kids. i presume you would need more than just the name. perhaps an address or other identifier. the problem is we're creating a little list here, a little list i think will feel dangerous to those identified and unwarranted whose hearts are very touched by dream act kids who are brought here as children, as the principles

released by the republican leadership pointed out, these are young people who committed no offense, whose only country is the united states and but for paperwork they would be americans. i don't think it is something that we should do to have their names released, to deport them, to turn our backs on them as this bill would do. i thank the gentleman for yielding and yield back. mr. cohen: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. franks: madam speaker, i'd just point out that this bill does not anticipate the appropriateness of one law or another. just the inappropriateness of ignoring the law in general. i would now yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. yoho: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to thank my colleague. you know, we talk about this country as a country of law and

transparency gets thrown around and yet we fail to come up short time and again. the current administration has made multiple attempts to bypass its article 2 duties and instead assume the article 1 legislative powers reserved for congress. the numerous changes to the affordable care act and the implementation of a one-size-fits-all prosecutorial discretion policy are just a few examples of the executive's failure to faithfully execute existing federal laws. under current law, the attorney general must report to congress whenever a department of justice official implements a policy to enforce a federal law. h.r. 3973, the faithful execution of the law act, simply extends that requirement to apply to all federal officials. this is a commonsense bill that will bring transparency to the current and future administration's execution of the law.

by requiring these reports to congress, the american people will get clarity on which laws are not being executed and assurance that these decisions are correctly made. this will also bring healthy debate and an opportunity for the executive to tell congress why a law is changed and what fashion it is changed and why it is necessary. for that reason i would think the administration would welcome this legislation. however, the administration has stated that this bill would overburden the attorney general because he'd have to know every law in every federal agency. madam speaker, who else but the chief legal officer of the united states is better equipped to argue over whether or not to change existing law? my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may disagree with the motivation for bringing this bill forward, but they cannot deny that it sets precedence to help both republican and democrat congresses to keep future administrations in check.

i ask my colleagues to imagine a republican president not enforcing the law that they support and remind them it is easy to overlook a violation of process when one agrees with the substance. there could come a day when you like us -- when you, like us today, will not overlook a similar duty of the process. he beauty of our government is applies equally and without agenda. i thank my good friend from florida, mr. desantis, the chairman, and for introducing this straightforward but necessary piece of legislation. and i encourage all my colleagues on both sides to support this bill, to keep the rule of law, and i yield back and to protect our constitutional republic. thank you. mr. franks: madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: i yield two minutes or thereabouts to the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. jeffries: i thank the distinguished gentleman from tennessee for yielding. madam speaker, i rise today to in opposition to a bill that could perhaps more appropriately be called the failure to execute our legislative responsibilities act. this bill is a legislative solution in search of a problem. there is no evidence, there is no basis, this is no way to rationally conclude that the president of the united states has breached his obligations under the law in a manner that's inconsistent with the constitution. now, i recognize, madam speaker, there are some individuals in this town who believe that the president of the united states broke the law in january of 2009 when he first took the oath of office. but there's no room for hyperbole or for hypothesis or for hysteria in the legislative process. this matter is another

diversion from the business of the american people that we actually should be doing. we stand here again today wasting the time and the treasure of the american people. we should be dealing with comprehensive immigration reform, but house republicans are blocking it. we should be increasing the minimum wage, but house republicans are blocking it. we should be extending unemployment insurance, but house republicans are blocking it. this bill is a distraction. i urge my colleagues to vote no, and let's get back to doing the business of the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. cohen: you're a mind reader. mr. franks: madam speaker, i'd now yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. collins: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to tell you it is amazing that i could actually come to the floor and say it is

a waste of time, it is a problematic talking about the very structure of our government, the very structure that was formed and how we interact with each other. i just don't get. i never thought i'd come to the floor of the house and hear those words actually uttered. i do remind my friend from across the aisle that there was that nirvana a few years ago, we talk about immigration reform where there was basically control of everything and you just chose not to act on it. so let's move past the point where we can look at what we're doing here today and that is looking at a law that actually goes back to the understanding of why we're here. every time i go home and every time i'm up here i get calls, i get notes saying, why is there the ability to change the law? it's not prosecutorial discretion. that's wrong. when you are looking at discretion, it's not an issue do

i want to do it or not, it's what does the law say? people back home care less about washington spee but care about their lives and a government that they read in textbooks that said how is how a bill becomes a law and we had a jing will about it on "schoolhouse rock." we won't be here if the republicans were not talking about, you would never hear about these things. the very thing we are talking about -- they want the american people want us to do more and say reaffirm your responsibility. the interesting thing here is we have had testimony in committee talking about this issue and the gentleman on which we disagree on policy, mr. turly said you may not like what has been done, but this is not the way to do it

and this goes back to an understanding of what undermines our congress. we don't do what we are supposed to do because we aren't holding article 1 responsibility and transparency from an executive that disobeys. we have to recertificate that article 1 authority. not only in bills, but also looking at article 1 responsibility with budgeting. article 1 responsibility to say we have to come to an agreement and say this is the law and the executive has to enforce that law. this is something that we can and my good friend from tennessee, we disagree on a lot of things, but we can work together on this. i remember when you were watching on c-span, the same outrage, why would the -- in fact we talk about imperial presidency, i remember the first time it came up, it happened to be from the ranking member of

our committee, mr. conyers, when he wrote about the imperial presidency of bush. let's take it out. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. frank: i yield two minutes. mr. collins: why are we here? because of the folks i see every day who says the president does whatever he wants to do and why isn't congress doing something? we are doing something. and these bills move forward and saying we are asserting our responsibility and our role. but this is what breaks my heart is that this should be bipartisan. this should be something we come down here and agree on. it should be bipartisan, that we should work together. for me, this is not an issue of who resides at 1600 pennsylvania. that's irrelevant to me. what is important to me is that this institution was set up to make laws, execute laws and

judge the constitutionality of laws. that is the way our system was set up. it has changed through the years. if the attorney general or the administration feels that there is a law that is wrong or unconstitutional, then the process is to come back to congress and say here are our ideas. you don't to say i don't like it. i'm not going to enforce it. nd for many of these to say it is prosecutorial discretion is an afront to the american people. the reason we are here today is congress asserting itself and asserting its role and for my district of georgia, that's why they sent me, to do what congress is supposed to do but also hold the administration accountable for what they are supposed to do, because back home, they don't get it. they remember it. i'm just a bill. just an ordinary bill. and that's the way it is

supposed to work. ime to stop rewriting the po books and execute the laws. mr. frank: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: i would like to respond to what was said about why congress is in such disrepute and if we pass this bill people would think better of us, the reason we are in disrepute, the g.o.p. shut down the government. people don't know how you make a bill per se, but they want the government open and want to go to different places and the g.o.p. shut down the government for 17 days and that's wrong. nd i yield now to ms. lofgren. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady from california. ms. lofgren: i would like to note that in 2010, the house of representatives did pass the dream act, eight republicans voted against it and it was killed by republicans in the senate, but we did our best to pass the dream act and in fact, it did pass this house and i still have the gavel that speaker pelosi used while presiding over that measure, displayed proudly in my office. i think also as we discuss matters, we can help undercut confidence in our system of government. yes, we are fans of article 1, because we are in the congress, but article 2 has its role as well. and it's important to note that the supreme court itself as recently as last year noted and that's in the arizona case, that the federal immigration officials have broad discretion, including, quote, whether it

makes sense to pursue removal at all, unquote, as part of their authority under the constitution. further, we have delegated to the president by statute, for the administration using its article 2 authority to establish the national immigration enforcement policies and priorities, which is what the president did. so let's not instill anxiety and confusion among our constituents by somehow saying when the president uses the authority that we have granted to him, that the supreme court has noted he has, that somehow that is improper. it is not. i would say further on the merits of the case, this is not just random authority, as the gentleman from arizona suggested earlier. it is the majority who specifically mentioned the dream act on page 2 of their committee

report as being problematic and a reason for this legislation. it was majority report, not me, who suggested that. and i think it is very mistaken and wrong on a policy matter. wrong on a legal matter and wrong constitutionally. and i yield back. mr. cohen: we continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. frank: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. mr. king: i thank the gentleman. i rise in support of this act and i'm a little bit astonished topic debate and the matter that is executive overreach. we have had extensive hearings on the judiciary committee and should be clear to all when the liberal constitutional

professors are concerned about our country, it's time for maybe a little bit more of an open dialogue and objective dialogue, but i would bring to your attention, madam speaker, some language that was in the "wall street journal" today and it was law pport the faithfully act and perfect example of why this bill is necessary. it is describing yet another obamacare delay that flies in the face of the statutory text. and i quote, this quote, this latest political reconstruction of obamacare has received zero media notice and health and human services department didn't think the details were worth discussing in a conference call, press material or fact sheet and instead, mandate suspension was buried in an unrelated rule that was meant to preserve some health plans that don't comply

with obamacare benefit and redistribution mandates. our sources noted the change this week, closed quote, from the "wall street journal." this isn't the way the congress should be informed about the president's failure to execute the law or defiance of the law or executive endeavor to amend the law outside the bounds of his article 2 constraints. no, madam speaker -- madam speaker, no president or any other federal official adopts a policy of failing to enforce the law or refusing to enforce the law, should immediately inform congress in writing so the american people with respond appropriately and to find out in a newspaper article or find out on a web site or worse yet in one of the earlier unconstitutional overreach efforts of the president to amend the obamacare law, we found on a third-tier u.s. treasury web site.

what if americans are responsible to know what the law says and do our best to comply with it could be cruising around on a third-tier treasury department web site to see if the president got up early or went to bed late and issued an order that there is going to be another change in obamacare. obamacare, it has his name on it. the president's name obamacare, name on the top and signature on the bottom. and we had a constitutional review this morning with constitutional scholars and i said it was 31 times that the president has by the stroke of his pen or word of his mouth, they corrected me. they said 38 times. i hope i get the list to examine those i am missing. he has no authority to amend obamacare. yes, there is executive discretion on the implementation of it. but the starkest violation of the constitution and the

starkest amendment to obamacare is the one that people agreed with. and it is this, that when the president announced that he was going to delay obamacare, the employer mandate for an extra year, when the bill itself says the implementation of the employer mandate shall commence in each month after december of 2013. i don't know how the gentlelady from california's dialogue gets around that very, very strict language that was written into obamacare. doesn't say if the president changes his mind, doesn't say if democrats are vulnerable, shall commence in each month after december of 2013. the president decided to delay that for a year. and now there are 30 or 37, pick your number, the president has done this. i remember criticism from last summer when i was asked by the press, shouldn't the demand by the people on the other side of the aisle, obamacare is the law

of the land and we are obligated to fund it through the appropriations process and that was a big debate. and i said then we don't know what the law is because the president has stirred the pot with his executive orders, his executive pen, his cell phone or press conferences, no one knows what obamacare is and if we knew, we would have to be a scholar of the bill because it's likely to change again. that is going on simply with obamacare. by the way, i would add, conscience protection when we were assured and it was to be written into the bill that the conscience protection would be there for those folks who had a concern and the president -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. frank: may i inquire as to the remainder of the time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona has three minutes remaining. mr. frank: i yield the gentleman

an additional 30 seconds. mr. king: the president even amended obamacare by press conference which is completely outrageous not to get to the immigration components of it. there is nothing in here that deports anyone. the president's overreach -- and by the way, the prosecutorial discretion says on an individual basis only. seven times in that order but creates four classes of people encompassing hundreds of thousands of people. you can't describe hundreds of thousands of people, they are groups created unconstitutionally by the president. and i would yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from tennessee has 9 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. cohen: i want to set the record straight before we get too much revision nist history. -- revisionist history. mr. sessions said that president obama liked the law so much, the

affordable care act, that he had it named for himself. and today, my friend from iowa said, they put his name on it. it wasn't us, it is the affordable care act patient protection act. it was the opponents them, calling it obamacare and they have gotten so used to it, they think we did it. take credit for what you do. . . i yield time to mr. nadler from new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding me time. madam chairperson, i ride in opposition to this burdensome and unnecessary piece of legislation. we all know this is a message bill. a bill that is not going anywhere in the senate and is intended only as political propaganda against the president. it is a sham and we all know it. in fact, we have come to expect it.

never mind that there are real problems facing the american people that we can and should be working on. like raising the minimum wage, reforming our broken immigration system, creating jobs, ex tendsing unemployment insurance -- extending unemployment shureges. it's not enough for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to ignore america's real problem, they have to waste time on invented problems that don't really exist. and that brings us to the bill before us today. this bill would require the attorney general to report to congress any instance when any federal officer establishes a policy to refrain from enforcing or applying or administering any federal law as well as to state the grounds underlying such a policy. it expands the current law which requires the attorney general to report instances when he determines not to enforce the law because he believes that law to be unconstitutional. this new burdensome mandate would not only result in confusion and drain already limited law enforcement resources, but would present separation of powers concerns as to its constitutionality.

the bill would require the attorney general to oversee every single federal officer, every u.s. attorney, every deputy u.s. attorney, every agent of any federal agency, thousands of people. and would require him to determine in every instance when they prioritize enforcement of some class of cases over others whether such exercise of discretion constitutes a policy of nonenforcement. what a complete mess. millions of decisions every year. talk about your bureaucratic nightmare, not to mention your waste of taxpayers' dollars. what's even worse is this bill is a thoroughly flawed solution in search of an imaginary problem. over the course two of oversight hearings on the topic, the bill's supporters have failed to identify a single example of the president really failing to faithfully execute the law. it is clear that they have confused constitutional violations with the president's legitimate exercise of enforcement discretion. which is not only well within his authority, but is in fact required by the constitution's

take-care clause. whether it be increasing the minimum wage for federal contractors, which he's allowed to do, allowing the dreamers to stay in the country by deferred deportation orders, for which is much precedent, or even delaying the implementation of certain provisions of the affordable care act, all of these actions are well within the president's legal authority. of course the president has the authority to set guidelines for federal contractors. or to prioritize immigration enforcement dollars away from deporting children. even when it comes to delaying deadlines of provisions of the affordable care act, his goal is not to underpline the law, it was the exact -- undermine the law, it was the exact opposite. to make sure the law is working well for the millions of americans who are benefiting from it. the children under age 26 and can remain on their parents' policies, those with pre-existing conditions who can get insurance, women and seniors benefits from -- benefiting from increased health care services and those who now have health insurance. so, madam chairperson, madam speaker, actually, i hope my

olleagues will be content with their message bill based on half truths, completely unworkable technically and completely without any benefit to the millions of americans who want more from congress than silly messages. americans want results. they want higher wages, a better immigration system and affordable health care. i guess the republicans are content to have them wait and to try to entertain them with silly nonsense. it's really sad, i hope we can get down to dealing with serious issues in this congress. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from tennessee reserve? mr. cohen: yes, i do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. franks: thank you, madam speaker. i would now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. i heard my friend from tennessee talk about revisionist history. and yet he's also talked about

republicans shutting down the government. so that we get this accurate, the truth is this body here proposed and passed three different compromises. one was going to suspend obamacare for a year. the senate would not even take that up. they wanted a shutdown. then we sent down a bill we passed from here that would actually just suspend the individual mandate that the president has done unconstitutionally and unilaterally for big business. and then when that didn't work, we passed a bill that said, look, here's our conferees, you appoint yours, we'll have a deal worked out by morning. harry reid wanted the congress and all of the federal government shut down and so he did nothing. so we know who shut things down. but i want to read a quote. quote, these last few years

we've seen an unacceptable abuse of power at home. we paid a heavy price by having a president whose priority is expanding his own power, the constitution is treated like a nuisance. barack obama said that and he could not be more right as to classification of his own conduct. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. mr. franks: thank you. i would ask, madam speaker, -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. cohen: yes. mr. franks: reserve. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. and the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. and the gentleman has 4 1/2 minutes left. mr. cohen: i would just like to say that while this legislation and the previous legislation -- legislation is going nowhere, and we should be dealing with the issues that face the american people, the serious issue of jobs and the environment and global warming and immigration reform and drug

reform and freedom and liberty and justice in the american way , that i admire the speaker. she's a fine woman and does a great job and has done a good job presiding today. and many of the republicans, even though i don't agree with them, i think they're nice people, and most people here try to do the right thing. unfortunately some of the policies that they have i think put the country in a wrong direction. but they're basically nice people. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back the remabledser of his time -- remainder of his time. and the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. franks: madam speaker, i would yield myself the remainder of the time and i would just say, madam speaker, that in spite of the many unrelated issues that my friends on the left have brought up to bear on this bill, this bill is about the rule of law. madam speaker, i would remind all of us that the rule of law is what we had that little unpleasant discussion with england about so many years ago.

and after that we wrote a constitution and every person in this body swore to defend that constitution. and that is what we're trying to do here. and if we now, as legislators in the united states congress, are willing to stand idly by and let the president of the -- d states legislative power unto himself, then we would be obligated to apologize for our oaths and dismiss the dream of human freedom and step back and board this place up and go home. but i would suggest to you, madam speaker, that some of us are not prepared and willing to do that. and so to that end, to the end that we can uphold the rule of law, i would encourage my colleagues to pass this bill and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate on the bill has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek

recognition? mr. ellison: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 113-378 offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 511, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: thank you, madam chair. if my colleagues who are offering this bill believe that it's a good idea, they should agree with my amendment. we'll see. my amendment is very simple. it just says that the number of generated t may be by this bill are so burdensome that they shut down and interfere and gnarl up the instrument of government. then it would be legitimate for the executive to waive the reporting requirements provided in the bill if sufficient funds

are not available to generate the increased volume. it makes simple sense to do so. i mean, my colleagues say they want transparency. they also say all the time that they want to cut red tape. they want to cut extra reports. they want to get government out of the way. well, their bill is getting government in the way for sure. and so if they are sincere about their desire for less government, then i'm certain that they would be willing to put in a provision in which we would waive reporting requirements, provided in the bill, if sufficient funds are not available to deal with all these reports that they're generating. but you know what? it may just be, madam chair, that given that we had a 16-day shutdown and given that we just saw the oversight committee chairman cut off the mike and given that we just have seen

sequestration and cutting off government, maybe right now what we're see something an effort to just bog down government. snarl it. wrap it up, get it twisted it up. so that it doesn't really function. but whether you're shutting down or cutting off or bogging down, it's all interfering with the american people's government and its ability to serve them. so i would ask for a yes vote on my amendment because my amendment makes sense, given that the general theme around here has been less government, particularly not unfunded mandates, things like that, we certainly are not sending an appropriation along with complying with this bill. we're certainly not sending money along and extra staff to be able to generate the reports that would come about as a result of this bill. so it just seems to me that it would be just fair for the executives to say, you know, that is not a constitutionally implicated provision that we

are using our discretion to either formally or formally not enforce. therefore we don't need to write a report, but for this amendment. but since we don't have the money and since i'm sure that my friends on the republican side wouldn't want to bog down government, they should just be able to waive the requirement if there are not sufficient funds to comply. so, i just want to point out, madam chairman, that this particular bill would have the effect of burdening government unless we do have some provision for the executive to escape it, given his overburdening nature. this particular bill would put it -- would put an undue burden. and i think it's important to point out, i think it's very important for everyone listening to this debate to know, madam speaker, that existing law already requires the department of justice to submit a report to congress when it determines that nonenforcement is recommended because the law is unconstitutional. so when we need a report, the

law already requires that we will get one. but informal, informal? think about the way this bill is written. it would require a federal agency to issue a report even if in the case of informal -- even in the case of informal nonenforcement. so does that mean if somebody decides not to charge out a case that they have to write a report on it? does that mean that if an e.p.a. official cannot get down to every single polluter because they're dealing with the big ones, that they have to write a report about it? does that mean that the f.b.i. cannot prioritize dangerousness of crimes and go after the most dangerous people and work with local law enforcement to deal with the other ones? this is a ridiculous people of -- piece of legislation being offered and it would generate all types of burdens and to meet and comply with it, it would require all types of expenses and extra staff. and since my republican friends

and i agree that it would not be a good idea to just push unfunded mandates on the government, i'm sure that i'll be able to get a lot of votes on both sides of the aisle that would allow the executive branch to waive reporting requirements provided -- mr. cohen: would the gentleman yield? mr. ellison: yes, i will. mr. cohen: you said you're sure could you get votes on both sides of the aisle? mr. ellison: i'm sure we will get people from both sides. the speaker pro tempore:

the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. franks: well, madam speaker, i would yield the remabledser of time to myself and -- remainleder of the time to myself and i would oppose -- remainder of the time to myself and i would oppose this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman claim time in opposition? mr. franks: yes, i do. i would oppose the amendment as it would explicitly grant the attorney general the unilateral power to negate the bill. this amendment would shield from accountability the president's, the attorney general and any other federal employee from the duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. madam speaker, we know that this bill will not cost the taxpayers any money according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office. as stated in their official view submitted to the bill, on the bill, the c.b.o. cost estimates, quote, enacting the bill would not effect direct spending or revenues. c.b.o. estimates that implementation of the bill would not have a significant effect on the budget because such reporting costs are small and subject already to the availability of appropriated funds. why does this grant unilateral authority to the attorney general?

the attorney general works for the president and when given the opportunity to immunize the president, what does one think the attorney general would do? logical to assume he would shield the president from accountability. the base bill is designed to hold the president accountable. this amendment would allow his own attorney general to shield the president from accountability and so this amendment should be roundly defeated. madam speaker, we have had significant debate here, but it's important to remind ourselves what it really is all about. the rule of law is the only context in which freedom on earth can exist and incumbent upon those of us who have taken an oath to uphold the constitution of the united states to protect that rule of law. and this is the intention of this bill. this is the deep commitment that should be on the part of all of us. with that, i hope my colleagues would defeat this amendment and

i would yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended and on the amendment by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of .r. 3973 is postponed. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d ovides for the automatic termination of a national emergency mls prior to the anniversary date the president transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision i have sent to the federal register the enclosed

notice stating that the national emergency with respect to iran that was declared on march 15, 1995, is to continue in effect beyond march 15, 2014. the crisis between the united states and iran resulting from the actions and policies of the government of iran has not been resolved. he joint plan of action, j.p.o.a. between 5-5 plus 1 and iran went into effect on january , 2014 for a period of six months. this is the first time that iran has agreed to and taken specific actions to halt its nuclear program and roll back in key respects. in return for iran's actions on its nuclear program, thep-5 plus 1 are taking actions to take sanctions outlined in the jpoa. nevertheless certain 308 cyst of the government of iran are

contrary to the region and continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the united states, for these reasons, i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to iran and to maintain in force comprehensive sanctions against iran to deal with this threat. signed barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs. and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: address the house for ne minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. without objection. mr. cohen: i rise today to applaud the minority business development agency on its 45th anniversary. the minority business development agency was established march 5, 1969 and it

has worked to promote growth and global competitiveness in critical segment of the u.s. economy. through their nationwide network of business centers, it has helped minority firms access contracts, capital and market opportunities both domestic and global. over the last five years specifically, they have provided minority firms access to $20 billion in capital. i thank them for all it has accomplished the last 45 years and especially in my congressional district, tennessee 9. the growth of america's work force will come from minorities and we need strong minority businesses to achieve maximum economic growth. i'm sure they will lead the nation to achieving its full potential. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? without objection. >> i rise to pay tribute to a man who has spent 35 years in public service and in my district in newport, oregon. i speak of don mann. retired as the general manager of the port of newport. his tenure was marked by significant changes that will be in that region for years to come. his leadership and vision are beginning to make that central oregon coast an economic hub. don led the charge putting together the proposal that relocated noah specific marine fleet against all odds. incredible achievement that cannot be understated. don has improved the international port of newport which will provide significant

economic development for that region. i want to say to you, don. it's been a pleasure working with you and i have enjoyed it immensely and i wish you and carolyn all the best in retirement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. are there further requests for one-minute speeches? under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 of the s the designee majority leader. mr. gohmert: i yield to the gentleman from california such time as he may consume. mr. lamalfa: i appreciate my good friend from texas. thank you, mr. speaker. i wanted to speak a little bit about some issues affecting

california and the wise use of u.s. taxpayer dollars. california's high-speed rail on its surface may have sounded promising to voters when they acted on it in the 2008 election until you take a closer look at it. once the planning on the project began the public found it would take billions beyond what was promised on the ballot. what had been a $33 billion price tag was november, 2011 public hearing exposed $100 billion project. after scrambling to make planned changes which made it illegal from the legislation that the voters passed, we see the downsized plan, which uses low-speed modse, again found illegal under the proposition. then when the price was found to be tripled, they discounted the

price to appear to have it a double price tag, which is far from what 52% of california voters said yes to. it was delayed by the state legislature two election cycles before being placed on the high-speed rail 2008 ballot. they thought it would be a manageable project with a 220 mile-an-hour train. the state could fund a portion the construction with $9.95 billion with bond funds with the assumption that the rest of the money would come from private investors. at the time, the 2009 stimulus act was an unknown. the high-speed rail project we have today has poorly drafted funding plans with little or no accounting to anyone. no accounting means millions of dollars spent on consultants,

environmental impact reports and lobbying here in washington, d.c., and numerous lawsuits by the people of california who stand to lose their homes, businesses and farms because they are in a path. a superior court judge ruled that the authority needed to redraft the funding plan for the project. the judge halted all bond sales because the authority hasn't attained the necessary clearances where construction is planned to begin nor shown a plan of financing to complete even the first phase of the project. meanwhile, the state's scheme to use truck weight fees in order to prop up the rail's bottom line. if a superior court judge says california can't spend any more on the planning and construction, why should american taxpayers via the federal government? $3.3 billion has been awarded to the high-speed rail authority

via the stimulus package that was approved in 2009. this was to spend on construction. the federal grant award is based on california's ability to match the federal dollars with state funds from the bond. it is my hope the federal government will put the money ear marked for the high-speed rail on hold. i don't believe it's in the best interest of california's taxpayers or american taxpayers to continue throwing money down this high-speed rat hole. these federal dollars should be used for building highways or to expand airports, more freeway lanes or especially in this time of severe drought in california and the west, redirecting the scares dollars to alleviate drought with new water storage and infrastructure which all californians will benefit from. instead, even after the judge's ruling, the authority said it would continue to press forward

the funding efforts to seize land from farms and businesses and perform the necessary and very expensive environmental reviews. they plan to frontload the project via the federal funds we saw in the stimulus package because the state funding has been been put on hold by the udge unless we in d.c. say no. nearly $1 billion has been spent without turning a shovel. assuming they receive $3.3 billion and the total cost to build is $69 billion, this means the high-speed rail has less than 1/6 funding necessary. to me, the math doesn't add up. perhaps infant asyland where the monorail does. would you continue to invest on something that was put on hold

because your business plan has holes to drive a train through? i think not. the authority hasn't shown any restraint. to date they have spent upwards of $600 million on engineering and consultants without breaking down. it will cost $987 million for a segment that can't operate trains as a standalone project. so many affected residents of the central valley and all over the state are happy that the funding has been put on hold. their farms, residences and businesses are threatened to be seized, shut down and destroyed for a project will never happen. i hope california will realize this is just a pipe dream and none of its goals for cost or ridership. the legislature had many opportunities to stop this and will have another chance next year. a state senator has revived my

rebuild the rail that i tried to get legislated back in 2010-2011 and which try to get it on the 2014 ballots. 55% of californians would like to vote again on the high-speed rail issue and 59% said they would vote it down. i support the proposal and needs to move forward to give people choice now they have seen the numbers. we need to stop federal dollars and direct those funds towards real needs such as tried and true water storage projects, infrastructure that will turn the water and jobs back on in the valley and keep california, the fruit and vegetables capital, producing 90% of u.s. fresh food that u.s. consumers need and desire. let's not push u.s. taxpayers on the hook for a high-speed rail boondoggle that benefits those

who make money off of it. californians don't need or can't afford it. i yield back to my friend from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is ecognized. recognized. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. sometimes it's very helpful to set the record straight as my friend from tennessee talked about earlier. i thought that would be highly appropriate given some of the lighthearted and sometimes mean-spirited barbs that have former t the way of governor, vice presidential candidate, sarah palin. so i just want to set the record straight, mr. speaker, so that people will understand

and the congressional record ll properly reflect just how press yent sarah palin has been in the past. we're going back 5 1/2 years. but this was an interview that charles gibson did that gave rise to a "saturday night live" skit, but this was charles gibson quoting never bates am from him and then -- verbatim from him and then sarah palin. let me ask you about specific national security situations. let's start, because we are near russia, let's start with russia and georgia. the administration has said we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of georgia. do you believe the united states should try to restore georgia's sovereignty over certain areas.

sarah palin, first off, we're going to continue good with them. giving him my commitment as john mccain's runningmate that we will be committed to georgia. and we've got to keep an eye on russia. for russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of the invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable. and we have to keep, gibson interrupted and said, you believe unprovoked? pay lynn, i do believe unprovoked and we have to keep our eyes on russia, unthe leadership there -- under the leadership there. gibson, what insight into russian action, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of this state give you? and this is the operative line here. sarah palin said, quote, they're our next door neighbors

and you can actually see russia from land here in alaska. gibson, you're in favor of putting georgia and ukraine into nato? and the interview goes on. but that's what sarah palin said. they're our next door neighborhoods and you can actually see russia from land ere in alaska. and that should be relevant to people, if you're living next door on one acre of land and the people that own the acre to you have been guilty in the past of breaking into other neighbors' sheds and buildings, then certainly that's something that you ought to be watching more closely than people on the other side of the town that don't live next door. i mean, proximity can be an

important matter. of what s the text "saturday night live" did on september 13, 2008, and we know that "saturday night live" has altered sketches that in the past, at least i recall seeing, where there were afraid it might make president obama look bad and they certainly didn't want to do that. it's ok to take shots at republicans, but they certainly didn't want to be fair and hit back at president obama the same way. and even as lorne michaels, comic genius that he is, has indicated, yeah, they do lean left there at saturday night live d -- "saturday night live." this was a sketch involving tina fey as sarah palin, amy poehler as hillary clinton. they were appearing together in the sketch.

and these quotes are verbatim from the sketch. tina fey asked sarah palin -- as sarah palin says, quote, but tonight we're crossing party lines to address the now very ugly role that sexism is playing in the campaign. unquote. then amy poehler as hillary clinton, quote, an issue which i am frankly surprised to hear people suddenly care about, unquote. tina fey as palin, you know hillary and i don't agree on everything. poehler as clinton says anything. i believe that diplomacy should be the cornerstone of any foreign policy. then tina fey, acting as sarah palin, said, and i can see russia from my house. so that is where the line came from. there's many in the united states that actually believe sarah palin said, and i can see

russia from my house. it was a very clever sketch, it was funny. i laughed when i saw it. but i also knew how intelligent and what a great leader and governor sarah palin had been and what a great leader she is. but we can all laugh at ourselves. i just didn't realize that that was going to take off and by the writers at "saturday night live" giving hillary clinton a line that said, anything, i believe that diplomacy should be the scorner -- corner stone of any foreign policy, sounding like a diplomat or a politician, and then trying to make sarah palin sound very much less so when actually the best quote remembered from hillary clinton will probably o down as the statement made

here on capitol hill in ference to the four american heroes serving in harm's way whose lives were taken by radicalist islamists in an act of terrorism that had nothing to do with a video and our secretary of state, having suffered a blow to the head, we were told, that kept her from testifying originally, she was able to say, what difference at this point does it make? not realizing obviously that when americans are murdered who are working for this government and even working for her, with her as you the -- as the boss, it is rather important to find those people hy

were murdered. told me some libyans before y thing back christmas. they said, so many americans want to know who killed your four americans. that's important. but an even more important question is why they were killed. so we have hillary clinton who is saying at this point what difference does it make why they were killed, how they were killed, and just the reverse of the way saturday night live d -- "saturday night live" made those two individuals look hrough the caricature. sarah palin called the shot with ukraine years ago, i would

say prophetic, but it's not prophetic, it is a bit appreciatent. but it has more to do with someone who has studied international relations, understands leaders like putin, understands their lust for power, and understands they've of o be stopped instead over g a plastic button dogmatic tic -- totalitarian leaders of russia and saying, here, let's press this button and we'll restart, reset everything. that's no way to conduct foreign policy. the greatest strides in the security and safety and acquiring the security and safety of the world have come

when people knew they were dealing with an evil empire and stood up to it. i was asked just shortly ago, why did you vote no on the bill that was brought to the house , give provide money loans to the ukrainian people? i developed a great love and care for the ukrainian people as a college student on a summer exchange program. and found a lot of commonality with college students, some of the colonel students there in the ukraine -- college students there in the ukraine, in ukraine. i made the mistake of saying the ukraine, mr. speaker, but

one of my ukrainian college friends corrected me when i was there as an exchange student. said, do you say i'm going home to the texas? and i said, no. and he said, we don't say the ukraine. come to ukraine. doesn't need the article the. so there in ukraine people are uffering, they feel the boot of russian power coming at them at first from the crimea and it may go farther. and i understand, having been in e a number of times, ukraine, that there are parts of ukraine that have sympathies ith russia, that love the days

of the soviet union, they didn't have to look for a job themselves, the government would tell them how far they were allowed to go in school, they would tell them what their job would be and you step out sigh e, you could go to beer yafment they actually miss those days. whereas most ukrainians seem to have that yearning that george w. bush talked about as president, a yearning to be free. not all people have it. as we've seen. some prefer security over complete freedom. and that needs to be understood. but as franklin was quoted, paraphrased as saying, those who would give up liberty for ecurity deserve neither.

but i know there were soviets after the fall of the iron curtain, after the demise of the soviet union who were panic-stricken. you mean, i gotta find a job? i mean, the government's always told me everything to do. but i'll never forget being in ukraine in recent years and had gone with ukrainian translator friend, my russian has gotten pretty bad since college, not having any need to use it. but we were in a ukrainian restaurant, it was off the beaten road, and so it was mainly ukrainians there. but in one area of the restaurant there was a very large extended russian family, that was clear, and the patriarch was clearly russian, speaking russian. he appeared to have had too much to drink.

and when the little trio came by, a couple with musical instruments and one young ukrainian with an incredible operatic voice and they would perform at tables and do requested songs, but they came over to the extended table with the extended russian family and the patriarch called out that he wanted to hear "moscow nights" and i bet the group knew "moscow nights" but they said they didn't know that. so they asked for another song and they performed it, it was magnificent, and then the boisterous russian patriarch said, and the translator was helping me, he said, we don't -- we never knew why you in ukraine wanted to pull away from russia. you know, we love you ukrainians we love you. we wanted to stay together as

brothers, we never understood ukraine wanting to pull away and not be part of russia. and the guy was probably late 20's, maybe 30 that was the singer, and he very plightly aid, in russian to the russian , have you been here to kiev before? and the russian said, yes, but it's been perhaps 20 years. and the young ukrainians said, ah, so how do you find it now compared to 20 years ago? and the russian patriarch, having had too much to drink, said, it's magnificent, you've done a fantastic job, oh, we love all of the buildings, all the growth, all the wonderful things you've done here, we want to be brothers, but you've done a magnificent job. and the young ukrainian singer

yelled, that's why we wanted to be a part -- apart from rush yafment you kept us owe -- russia. you kept us oppressed, took away the best we had, you stepped on us, you mistreated us, you would not let us reach our potential, that's why we want to be separate from russia, that's why we separated from russia, that's why we do not want to be part of russia, you took the best we had and left us nothing, we can do much greater things when you allow us as ukrainians to be in charge of ukraine. i wanted to stand up and give the young man a standing ovation. i was thrilled that he felt so strongly and passionate about ukranian freedom. there are so many in ukraine that feel that way. they don't want the russian boot on their throats. some are not aware that when

perhaps the most evil man of the 20th century, hitler, hitler's forces marched into ukraine, they were actually met initially lauding that nd the ukranians looked upon them as liberators from russia. and if they had not been so nsumed by the ridiculous superrace mentality that they sold themselves on, they would have recognized that the ukranians would have helped them. but instead, they brutalized killed ukranians and forcefully ukranians against

the nazis. not so nazis been im sumed with their narciss and self engrandizement, they probably could have used their help and not suffered such a brutal winter in russia as they did. that's history. i'm very proud that we have a former governor from alaska that , erstands people like putin putin may have debility that stalin did. the english translation was with

dizziness. so putin gets a little bit dizzy. gee, let's take the crimea, because he has done, as khrushchev did of our late great president john kennedy. kennedy was a brilliant man. there was no question he was a man of courage, as illustrated during world war ii. e're told that he was taking a number of medications when they met in vienna, the summer of 1961, but he also acknowledged after his meeting with khrushchev that khrushchev just brutalized him and seemed a bit embarrassed with how he

performed. khrushchev, on the other hand, had said he was immature, he was weak. that was his assessment of kennedy, because he already knew he had backed kennedy down during the bay of pigs when the plan that was hatched during the eisenhower administration, kennedy was apprised of, but then it was changed. kennedy takes office as our president and he finds out there is going to be more american involvement. and unfortunately within three days of the invasion to be launched into the bay of pigs to attempt to overthrow castro in got coldsident kennedy feet, pulled back on the support

that was going to be offered and provided the people -- were devastated, killed or taken prisoners. it was a disaster. kennedy said later, he would have preferred an all-out invasion to appearing so weak, words to that effect. and then the meeting between khrushchev and kennedy in vienna, i believe it was june of 1961, reafffirmed in khrushchev's mind that this was a weak, immature leader. and then toward the end of july of 1961, president kennedy gave a powerful speech, behavingly making clear that we have a commitment to west berlin. we have a commitment to west germany, and we would not under any circumstances, allow the

russians to prevent us from making good on our promises. he even used the word force. didn't want to use force, but if it was required, it would be used. khrushchev had already taken the measure of the man and knew he could push him further and the berlin wall began being built. and the united states did nothing. and reafffirmed in khrushchev's mind that what he had assessed in vienna that kennedy was immature, was weak, was even more true than he had thought before, he knew he could push this man and as a result, he was willing to risk thermal nuclear war to put missiles with nuclear missiles into cuba. he would have never have been so

brazen as to put nuclear weapons on missiles within 90 miles of florida had it not been for his repeated assessment in the first year of john contendy's presidency that he was weak -- john kennedy's presidency that he was walk. he was mistaken. at least three times, he did have courage, just took him a while to get up to it. but as a result of the weakness that was assessed by khrushchev, we almost came to mutually assured destruction where the united states and soviet union would have launched nuclear weapons toward each other. it was a very, very dangerous time for the world.

we are now under the administration of president obama and i cannot imagine any perceiving er anything but just absolute when they a leader heard what the microphone picked up when president obama basically has said before the after the ll putin election, i'll have a lot more flexibility. the message was clear. i'm willing to cave on all kinds of things. i have to look strong right now but i'll cave on things once we get past the 2012 election. for all the things that he is,

putin is not stupid. he knew exactly what that message was, though most of the voters in the 2012 election did not. and as a result of that and so many other things, russia cow america can and we will not stand up when this president draws red lines, . ey won't be enforced i want to go back to something sarah palin pointed out in her interview. and this is actually in "newsbusters" and the interview she gave with charlie gibson and sets the record straight, but palin foresaw that because of

putin's actions and russia's vement against georgia, that if we did not send a very clear message that such offensive rder neglecting actions were not rebutted, then there would be other invasions to follow. skewered for saying back in 2008 that if russia was next, they then ould move against ukraine. she was belit willed for that. belittled for that

d yet she had read putin better than anyone in this administration. she knew what they wanted to do. and she knew there is only one way to deal with bullies and it's not to repeatedly give them your lunch money. if you continue to continue to apiece bullies, not only will they take more and more and more , but they will have no respect for you what soffer. that is also a -- whatsoever. that is a problem we have had with radical islammist leaders in the world. they understand one thing. and that's strength. that's why the marines, the united states marines were sent to the shores of tripoli.

it was not the negotiations that thomas jefferson and others engaged in with the barbary pirates, those radical islammists. that didn't do any good. it wasn't until the marines fought tougher than the radical islammists and realized, gee, we better leave these guys alone but for the valiant fighting of the marines, then we would have continued to have to pay huge portions of our united states budget for extortion tore get sailors back. sarah palin understood that. she understood that you have to stand up to bullies. so i think it's important that

the congressional record properly reflect that sarah alin had it right. "saturday night live" assessed her wrong. arah palin had putin pegged. she had the actions of russia pegged. she knew what they would do next. so what have we done? the ukranian borders are want d by russia and we to go by as our friend is being brutalized, assaulted and throw money at our friend who is being brutalized. that's not much of a friend. if i'm being assaulted, i would hope a friend would stop and help me and not just throw money

on the way by. and in fact, we have agreements in writing that require more than simply throwing money at ukraine when they are being rutalized by russia. . . russia's economy isn't all that strong. i don't know if ukraine would get this desperate or not, but we know that putin, just to show ukraine that they can hurt them, has stopped the flow of natural gas before and would obviously be willing to do it again. but russia has very long pipelines that run through ukraine. perhaps at some point ukraine

will get desperate enough to say, well, they may have a very weak leader over in the united states that will not come help us, but something we can do to hurt you, mr. putin, do you one more thing and those -- you do one more things and those pipelines of yours that bring you so much money into your treasury will be history. and then see how you do. i hope it never gets to that point. i hope that russia doesn't continue to push matters until they push us to the brink of world war again. the debate between president obama and governor romney in which president obama chided him by

saying, you know, the 1980's called and they want their foreign policy back. we've now seen the appeasement repeatedly of this administration and that's why i've said before, as neville chamberlain called to this administration, he wants his foreign policy back because it appears it's being utilized once again it. didn't work for england against hitler and it will not work now gainst russia and putin. i was very small as a kid in elementary school. i learned early on, i may get my nose bloodied but i'm going to make the big bully hurt. and when i made him hurt enough, after he had bloodied my nose, he left me alone. he could have hurt me, but it

doesn't matter whether you're big or small, if you want to deal with bullies by appeasement over and over and over again, then it's clear you're going to continue to encourage bullying. i was never for bullying, i would stand up to it as a young kid -- in elementary school and i'm for standing up against it when we have the most powerful history in the -- military in the history of the world, until this administration finishes with it, we still do for now, but i see my dear friend, dr. michael burgess from texas, and i would yield to him for whatever time he wants to use. mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a rived -- privileged report for the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 515. resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r.

3189, to prohibit the continuing of any -- conditioning of any permit, lease or other use agreement on the transfer relinquishment or other impairment of any water right to the united states by the securities of the secretaries of the interior and agriculture, providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4015, to amend title 18 of the social security act, to repeal the medicare sustainability growth rate, and -- sustainable growth rate, and to improve medicare payments for physicians and other professionals and for other purposes. and providing for the proceedings during the period from march 17, 2014, through arch 21, 2014. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar .nd ordered printed the gentleman from texas may resume. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from texas for such a lovell speech.

very touching -- lovely speech. very touching. here's something else that's pretty powerful. sarah palin in her speech to the conservative political action committee in march -- on arch 8, 2014, said this, those policies that the cabinet have to explain and justify, how do you convey to putin the threat that sounds like vladimir don't mess around or you're going to feel my flexibility, because i've got a phone and i got a pen and, um, i can dial real fast and poke you with my pen, pinky promise. well, obviously she was having some fun herself. but she makes the point. a phone and a pen won't do it. when you're talking about a bully that does not mind violating borders, killing

people, subjugating masses of people. you have to stand up to him. i think one of the clear indications not only that we had a weak administration on foreign policy, but also we didn't use common sense in protecting ourselves, came very clearly before the boston , the when the russians russian people like us pretty well, but the russian leaders don't like us particularly, and but inly don't respect us, even so they realized that we actually have a common enemy and that's radical islam. radical islam with a would love to see russia fall, ukraine fall, united states fall, would love to see that all -- it all fall under a giant global

caliphate. so we have that common enemy. who wants to destroy each of our ways of life. so russia, despite their dislike and distaste in some ways for the united states, actually reached out and said, hey, we're not sure you realized but this tsarnaev, he's been radicalized. he's dangerous. we're not going to reveal any - too much secrets here, but any intelligent administration will take what we have said, that tsarnaev is dangerous, he's been radicalized, he's a threat to you and do some digging. and the best we can find out, en after questioning the

director of the feb f.b.i., the best keck find out is apparently they went and talked to sar himself. well, ok, i guess you got to do that. good idea. if somebody's very good at questioning, if somebody really understands the radical islamist mind, if he knows who the islamic authors are that have been -- have inspired radicalism, if he knows who the imams are that has helped radicalize people, then you can ask the right questions. about which imams you've been around, what authors are your favorite authors, what do you the writing and from there, the milestone that osama bin laden credited with helping radicalize him?

if you know the questions to ask, you can find out whether someone has really been radicalized. but, as a few of us have found the when we reviewed material purged from f.b.i. aining material, we're not allowing our f.b.i. agents to be properly trained as to the threat and the beliefs of radical islamists. and again as one of our intelligence officers has told me, you know, we have blinded ourselves of the ability to see our enemy. and it continues. and we continue to have people who this administration have known associations with

radical islamists. the egyptian paper, back when it was controlled by the muslim brotherhood, bragged that they had six muslim brothers who were top advisors and top positions in this administration. so we're not allowing our f.b.i., our intelligence officials, agents to be trained to properly see this threat, so the russians say, hey, this guy's a threat to you, you better check him out, you'll find out what we're talking about. he had been it an area where people were often radicalized. that he e to an area came to america claiming asylum to need asylum from and he goes back to that area? well, that should have been a

red flag right there. he didn't need sigh lum from that area. he just -- asylum from that area. he just wept back there and got radicalized. but our blinded f.b.i. agents were not able to ask those questions and when i childed -- chided the f.b.i. director for not even going out to the muslim mosques to talk to people out there, to ask questions, to find out if the tsarnaevs have been radicalized , the f.b.i. director said that they did go out there to those mosques. i didn't hear it at the time. but i heard it on the replay when he adds, as part of our outreach program. they didn't go out there to tsarnaevs to save bostonians' lives. he didn't even know that the islamic society of boston was started by a man named al amoudi who is in prison for 23

ears for supporting terrorism. after being a very important advisor, he helped find muslims to go into the military as muslim chaplains. he helped the clinton administration, he actually helped the george w. bush administration early on, until they figured out, whoa this guy's supporting terrorism and they had him arrested, i believe it was in 2003, out at the airport and he's in prison now. because they recognized what he is. but our f.b.i. director, the f.b.i. agents didn't even know you had a terrorist supporter that started the mosque where the tsarnaevs went. so when the russians see that we give america, that we don't really like, we don't really trust, but we give them a heads up to actually save american lives, and even with a heads up

like they gave us, they can't properly protect the people of boston because of political correctness in this administration. well, it just adds to the assessment by putin and the other leaders in russia that these are people that don't recognize danger when it's pointed out to them with a big sign, danger, on it. so of course, just like the assessment that turned out in the end to be wrong, i hope and pray that we don't get to the brink of nuclear war because leaders around the world have assessed that the american president is weak and can be pushed around indefinitely.

i don't think president obama can be pushed around indefinitely. but i sure don't want him to be pushed all the way to nuclear war before we finally take a stand, as kennedy did. and you don't have to get that far if you stand up against the bullies early on as neville chamberlain was not willing to do and as a result millions and millions died, millions suffered unthinkable tragic suffering because leaders wanted to go the appeasement route. for all the flack sarah palin has taken, she had russia pegged and it's not because she ever said, i can see russia from my house. she never said that. she ac latly -- accurately said

you can see russia from parts of alaska. not her house. but she was willing to laugh at the sketch. but now we're not talking about laughable things, we're talking about freedom being taken at the in of military weapons crimea in ukraine. we shea china moving in areas and places they've never had the courage to move because they knew america would not stand for it and we would rally other nations against china, and the chinese leaders know that at times as good as the economy

seemed to be going, they are a fragile economy, as i've said before, i think if china knew that they could call all the debt of the united states and push us into bankruptcy type mode in the united states they would, except they would suffer dramatically and if they ever get to the point that they think they can take this nation down financially without losing their own, they would do it. and that's why it is a terrible wrong as a government to allow ourselves to become further and further indebted to china. and today apparently news we were seeing, their economy has taken a hit today. look forward to finding out more about that this evening. but it's time americans woke up,

mr. speaker, and realized appeasement of bullies, of thugs, has never worked. it will never work. and when you're the most powerful, have the most powerful military in world history in the face of growing bully power, you don't abandon yours. we want to help those who cannot feed themselves in america. we want to help those who cannot provide for themselves in america. certainly we differ on our side of the aisle, that those who are able bodied and can work, let's get the economy going so people have a job and can do for themselves and make more. let's don't continue to make

people more and more dependent on the government. and i know my friends across the aisle do not want to see the world fall into war as it did in world war 2. do not want to see us come to the brink of thermonuclear iniling as it almost did during -- aniling as it almost did during -- annihilation as it almost did in president kennedy's term, but it's important to understand from history, that's where you go when you show weakness. and we can defend ourselves without putting tens of thousands or a hundred thousand troops into a country like we did in afghanistan. for heaven's sake, we defeated the taliban with less than 500 americans in there helping the northern alliance. we helped them with weapons, we

helped them with aerocover, we helped them with intel and they defeated our enemy for us. and this administration will point to the northern alliance and call them war criminals because they fought like the taliban fought. we can fight our enemies by empowering the enemy of our enemy. they're muslim, we can live with the northern alliance, as long as they don't ever turn on us. but as long as they're going to fight our enemy, then let them fight our enemy. and yet for the government that was given to afghanistan at our country tribal regional like afghanistan was given a strong centralized government that would lead to nothing but corruption, should have known it when it happened, so how do we

there?th the problem as my friend former vice president ma pseudosaid, you help us get an amendment into our constitution that allows us to elect our governors, elect our mayors, pick our own police chiefs, take that power away from the appointment power of the president and we can protect our regions and we can keep the taliban from taking over. but this administration has not -- doesn't seem to want to push for something like that. can't even get a status of forces agreement that was teed up completely for them by president bush in iraq and then was fumbled by this dministration. was meeting, had a visit with someone today if you've done

homework you know, mr. speaker, is apparently getting supplied mainly from pakistan. and much of the supplies come through the more southern area, that area of pakistan. we also know that those people in that area have been victimized, oppressed, persecuted, killed, terrorized by the pakistani military, the pakistani government. and iran has done the same thing because the balouch people are indigenous to the southern part of pakistan and on into the most minerally rich areas of iran. so we don't have to go to war with iran. we don't have to go to war with

pakistan. but if you start assisting those people to stop the oppression and perhaps have their own independent country, the taliban stop getting supplied by pakistan, iran doesn't have all of the minerals, they have those mineral areas, a big part of them, an important part of them, at least, are run by these balouch people and we can do business with them. there are ways to deal with the so that our enemies they keep areas around the world in check. so you don't have to lose so much american lives. most people are not aware, most americans have been killed under the administration of this president, it's time we stood firm. it's time we let the bullies of the world know, sarah palin was right and we need to stand up to

them. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. sarbanes: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the summit of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sarbanes: mr. speaker, i appreciate the opportunity to speak to the chamber this evening. i want to talk about the topic of money and politics which is something i think americans across the country are increasingly anxious about because it really jeopardizes the voice they should have in their politics and democracy and their own government. yesterday there was a special election in florida's 13th district. and the results of that election will get commented on at length in the coming days, people will

try to make forecasts about what it meaners in 2014 election cycle, generally they'll analyze it, look at the data, and they'll prognosticate as to what the implications of it are going forward. but a lot of that commentary will miss what in many ways, i think, was the most sinister aspect of the election yesterday that was held in florida. that's the tremendous amount of money, the tremendous amount of money that poured into that election. not from ordinary, everyday citizens, not from the people who real ii have a stake in the outcome. they were the ones asked to go to the polls but the money that poured in there, that bought advertisements to the tune of almost $3 million,

million spent on that campaign, about 30% of it was donated to the candidates themselves. 30% of that $13 million was donated to the candidates themselves. the rest of the money came from outside sources. party committees, superp.a.c.s, anonymous donors, the ones who have been flooding the airwaves in the last couple of election cycles with negative advertising . that's where the great majority of the money that came into that special election yesterday was sourced. and that's, i think, a harbinger of things to come. if you look back at the 2010 seekle, if you look at the 2012

election cycle, both at the congressional level and at the presidential level, tremendous amounts of money pouring into campaigns and into elections, much of it coming from sources that don't identify themselves. secret money. these big superp.a.c.s. who weigh in and try to determine the outcome of elections. and where does that leave the everyday citizen? where does that leave the person out there, the person who is sitting at their kitchen table, who is watch their television d is seeing all of these negative tv commercials pouring in. where does that leave them in terms of their feeling about whether they have a voice in the process? i talked to my constituents, i

listened to the way they feel about the current system of funding campaigns. and there's an increasing sense of disillusionment out there. deep cynicism. that election outcomes are determined by big money and special interests. and that the voices and opinions and priorities and concerns of everyday citizens are being tasked -- are being cast aside. that's the legacy of the influence of big money and special interests on our politics today. so yesterday's election in the 13th district of florida put a fine point on it, it demonstrated how much money can go into one special election. i mean it was historic.

$13 million being spent. but more importantly it was a lesson as to what we're looking at down the road. this idea that if you've got a big wallet you'd get an extra . ice in our democracy that somehow your opinion and your ideas count more because of the size of your wallet and your ability to throw millions of dollars into campaigns. that's not what a democracy is about. that's a pluing to becy. -- a plutocracy. that's a government and a system that's dominated by big money and special interests and leaves the voices of everyday citizens behind. so that they start asking themselves, does my voice matter? can i have an impact? do my ideas count?

if i'm only able to write a heck for $25 to a candidate who i think will do the right thing for me, can that $25 check compete against a million-dollar check some big donor can write to fund a super p.a.c. this is why people across the country, it's not the only reason, but it's one of the main reasons that people across the country are so disaffected with washington and congress and government, because they feel like their voice is being drowned out by the big moneyed interests out there. and mr. speaker, we've got to do something about this because if we're going to restore the confidence and trust of americans across this country they need to believe again that their voice matters. they need to believe that when

they are trying to understand the issues in an election and follow the debate and become informed that that information will come to them from responsible sources, not from sort of these shadowy, hidden, secret donors out there that have found a way to dominate the airwaves. so that special election yesterday, i think, was a warning to us all. . that this trend toward big money and special interests, weighing in to what ought to be a democratic process that's owned and invested in by everyday citizens, that that trend is continuing and it's worsening. and at the end of that path lies deep, deep cynicism on the part of the american people. you can feel it.

you can almost touch it. when you go out into your district and you talk to your constituents who are angry and frustrated and want to see this place respond to their concerns and to their needs. so what can we do about this? i said a moment ago, we have to do something soon. we have to address this cynicism that people are feeling. or they're not going to trust us at all, they're not going to believe that we can deliver for them. in the people's house. this is a house of representatives. it has the name. the people's house. we run every two years. we're as close to the people as elected representatives can be. they want to see that we're listening. to them.

and right now, i said this last week in some ways when it comes to the relevance of this body to the average american out there, we're hanging on by a thread. we're hanging on by a thread because increasingly they think that we answer to big money and special interests and we've stopped listening to the average person out there. so we need to do something about this. we need to fix this. we need to recognize that there's a problem and we need to take meaningful steps to address it. that's why, mr. speaker, about over 125 o, joined by original co-sponsors, i was proud to introduce something called the government by the people act, which is an effort to create a new way of funding campaigns that puts everyday

citizens back at the center of the equation. it says, no longer are we going to cede the financing and funding of campaigns to big money and special interests. we're going to come up with another way of doing it. a way that puts everyday a place of owning their democracy again. of feeling like they have a voice. and already within the last month we've seen across this country more than 400,000 people who have become citizen co-sponsors of the government by the people act because they are desperate to see a change which gives them their voice back. at a time when they feel, as those residents of the 13th district in florida felt over the last few weeks, that their voice isn't the one that matters, it's the voice of the big money and the special interests and the superpacs

that seems to carry the day. so the government by the people act would encourage people to participate in the funding of campaigns, small donors who would be assisted by a tax credit or a fundable tax credit of $25 to make it he's area forethem to participate on the funding side -- to make it easier for them to participate on the funding side of the ampaign. so candidates would begin to pay attention to everyday citizens for the funding of their campaigns. and not be so dependent on big money and special interests. that's the promise of reform that's embodied in the government by the people act. and we even provide that candidates who are true grassroots and dates, who go out there and make the case to their constituents and earn the support of their constituents

in these small donations, that those candidates when they get into the final days of a campaign and an election, if a superpac starts to come at them and try to wipe them off the field, off the playing field, there's some additional resources that can help them stay in the game, can keep their voice in the mix so they can get to election day. and i believe that under those circumstances many of those candidates who turn to their own constituents, who turn to small donors, who turn to everyday citizens to fund their campaigns can be competitive and can win. even in the face of these superpacs and the big money that's pouring into campaigns. so this is real reform, mr. speaker, and i was very pleased, as i said, that we had a number of original co-sponsors who joined us, when we introduced the bill about a month ago. one of them who has been

listening as carefully as anybody out there to what everyday citizens are saying out this, and joined us as a co-sponsor on the bill, and can really speak to this, i believe, from the heart is my colleague and lowenthal from california and i'd be happy to yield some time to him now -- allen lowenthal from california, and i'd be happy to yield some too time to him now -- some time to him now. mr. lowenthal: -- local local thank you and i'd -- mr. lowenthal: thank you and i'd really like to thank the gentleman from maryland who has worked so long and tirelessly on making sure that unlimited campaign spending does not drown out the voice of the people. and i want to thank him for putting together a bill that gives the public a chance to be heard over big money interests. a little bit, mr. speaker, a little bit about my own experience. when i first ran for, many years ago, for city council and

then i went on to the state and to the congress, when i first ran for city council, it was a very difficult time in my district. it was a time where we actually had a period of where, when i first was elected, where we had martial law, because we had rioting because of after the rodney king decision in southern california. and i walked my district and i heard from everyone that their voices weren't being heard. that the city at the time was not listening to them and so i lt as important as any piece of ledge sligs was to give -- legislation was to give people the chance to come together to create something to have their voices heard and i spent that first year when i was elected working with my community in groups and we decided that campaign reform, limiting the size of contributions, would

enable our city to move forward again. and would bring people together and they wanted to be able to have a chance to participate. and we did it and we put it on the ballot and it overwhelmingly passed. i've realized, as i went forward, first to the state legislature and now here to congress, that the best way to fight against unlimited campaign spending by outside political action committees and individuals who are capable of spending unlimited amounts of money, short of amending the constitution to repeal citizens unitesed, is to do exactly what congress -- united, is to do exactly what congressman sarbanes has done, give voice to ordinary citizens. that's what we should be doing. congressman sarbanes' bill, h.r. 20, the government by the people act, it's a comprehensive reform package

designed to combat the influence of big money politics . as equally important, it is to raise civic engagement and it really is to amplify the voice of ordinary americans. and that's what we should be hearing, that's what we're hearing every day in our districts. the bill would magnify the impact of small donations from average citizens, allowing congressional candidates who only take small donations to be competitive with candidates who are backed by outside groups, who are capable of raising and spending large amount ofs -- large amounts of money. for example, if this bill becomes law, individuals would given a $25 refundable my voice tax credit per year to help incentivize and spur small dollar donations to candidates for congressional office.

people would be feeling that the government is asking them to contribute and to participate. and candidates now who forego contributions from superpacs and only accept donations of der $1,000 would be eligible for a 6-1 match by small donors , that is people who are donating under $150, from a newly established freedom from influence fund. do you know what this will mean to the average american who says, if i contribute a small amount it doesn't mean anything? all of a sudden we're saying, you count, your contribution means something. according to the federal elections commission in 2012, individual small donors were outspent by 3-1 by outside groups. we need to figure out how to

empower average citizens whose voices are drowned out by outside money from shadowy organizations. we have to shift this balance of power away from wealthy interests to ordinary americans. to people who are asking that their government be responsive to them. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 20, the government by the people act, and i urge the speaker of this house to bring this vital bill to the floor of the house of representatives. give us the opportunity to vote for democracy, to vote for the people of this country and i thank you and i yield back the time. sash sash i thank the gentleman -- mr. sarbanes: i thank the gentleman for yielding back. i might ask him one question. because my sense is that if you have a system like this in place, not only will you empower everyday citizens to feel like their voice truly

does count, and that would increase participation, you'd have people i think coming back into the political town square who have now fled the town square because they are cynical and disillusioned. but my sense is it would also create more access for candidates who right now are shut out of the process because they may not be in a position to raise the big dollars that you have to raise these days to run a race. there's a lot of good people out there who would like to try to run for congress perhaps. but they don't know a lot of people who have a lot of money. but if there was a system that rewarded small donations to their campaign and provided public matching funds coming in behind that, they might be able to run and they might be able to be competitive. so i wonder if you have some thoughts about that. mr. lowenthal: i agree completely. you know, people decide to run frequently -- or want to run, maybe even better than decide, they don't decide, they want to

run because they believe that they can be the voice for those that do not have a voice, for people in their community who feel disenfranchised. people like themselves who just want to participate and feel that they have no voice. and then they get involved in this process or they think about it and they realize that they -- that doesn't matter. it doesn't matter who you're listening to, it doesn't matter who you're accountable to, it doesn't matter that you really care about creating a sense of community and involvement and that people have a responsibility to participate themselves, all that matters is how much large money you can raise. and that's what the rules are. and i think that we have that balance between funding elections and listening to people has gotten way out of black and that has to discurrentlied so many people from wanting to run. because they're not confronted

with the reality it. makes no difference that you're tied to a community and you give voice to people in that community. the only thing that makes a difference is how much money you can raise from large interests. and i think that does a -- does a tremendous disservice to this institution and to all institutions that depend upon public support. mr. sarbanes: again i want to thank my colleague for his support of this reform effort, for joining us as an original co-sponsor of the government by the people act. we think there's real momentum here. we have 140 members of this body now that have joined as co-sponsors. but there's something else happening. which is exciting. and i think offers some new opportunities for this kind of legislation. i mean, we've had these efforts in the past and some of them have gotten the traction you'd like to see. others have not. but there's something new

happening. there are organizations, national organizations across this country who are forming a coalition and this consists of many of the good government groups and reform groups that have been in this space for a long time. but there are other people coming to this issue, there are other people that are joining the fight to push back on the influence of big money and special interests and in our politics and in our government. environmental groups like the sierra club and green peace, civil rights organizations like the naacp, labor organizations who are getting behind this effort because they understand that the change they want to ee, protecting the environment , making sure that our civil rights laws are being enforced, that the change they want to see too often is being thwarted by the influence of big money. so they've adopted this issue

as a priority for their organizations and they're joining this coalition. because this is not just about the influence of big money on the outcome of elections. oftentimes that's where the focus gets placed. this is also the effect that big money has when it comes to governing because the reality of it is, if you have an institution that becomes increasingly dependent on big money and special interests, then when it comes time to vote on important policy matters, it's just human nature that the institution will tend to lean in the direction of where that money comes from. and lean away from everyday citizens. he promise of this legislation

is that if everyday citizens and matching funds become the source of powering campaigns, then when the candidates that are elected get here to washington, the only people they'll owe are those everyday folks who helped to power their campaign. they'll have an independence that will allow them when they go to make policy to really think about the issues that are at stake. the fact of the matter is that the tremendous amount of money that pours into this place from p.a.c.s and other special interests can gum up the system so it doesn't work. and i'd be interested in my colleagues' -- colleague's observations on a couple of quotations from former members

of the congress. these are very interesting. i'm going to read a quotation from former senator bob dole, republican minority leader, who said in 1982, when these political action committees give money, they expect something in return other than good government. it is making it much more difficult to legislate. we may reach a point where if everybody is buying something with p.a.c. money, we can't get anything done. that was republican minority leader bob dole in 1982, before the trend had gotten to the point where it is now. and i'd be interested in my colleague's observations, just on how money comes in and can actually begin to influence the way policy gets made here in ashington.

>> on many different levels, congressman. it's interesting that today people say that government and the ourps ours -- and the house of representatives and the senate, it's dysfunctional. mr. lowenthal: and yet as you pointed out in that quote, senator dole saw a long time ago when at least some things were getting done, more things were getting done. that we were beginning to go down the wrong path, that the influence of money was stopping us from really looking at the critical policies that affect the nation and debating those and listening to ordinary citizens here because as we talked about when ordinary citizens are cut out, when the only people who get to visit and to talk to us are those that contribute large amounts of money to our campaigns, they have special access. they're the bills that get

brought up. they're the ones we listen to because everyone stops being beholden to the policies that brought them here, what they want to do to form good government, and they are beholden what will get them re-elected and the large amounts of money that come in so i agree , it is interesting that senator dole said that, that's now , most 30 -- over 30 years ago when we did not heed the warning of listening to citizens, of creating a system that not only would decrease the role of large outside interests, but as you have done, increase the role of ordinary citizens to actually be listened to and be able to bring their thoughts to bear because we would become accountable to them. i think that's where we are today. that accountability is not there.

mr. sarbanes: i appreciate it and i'll follow up on what you just said, there's another quote i want to read, from senator ruddman, who was a force here on capitol hill when he served he said money affects who senators and house members see, who they affects e with, and it the outcomes as well. which is what you just said. you can understand why everyday americans are getting so fed up. i went and hired a film rue krewe. i decided i was going to interview some people in my district at one of the local fairs. i just wanted to get their views of this issue. so i went out, i spent two hours, i stood in the central artery of this festival and i said, i'm congressman sarbanes, i want to ask you two questions, the first question is, what do you think of congress? and they said, do you really want to know? i said, i wouldn't be here

otherwise. and they told me what they think about congress. and you know what they think about congress. all you have to do is look at the latest survey that shows our approval rating is hovering around 10% or 12%. you can't run a country if the institutions that are supposed to be instruments of democracy are held in such low esteem. the second question i asked them was, what do you think about the influence of big money on our politics? and what was amazing, these were republicans, democrats, independents. it was as though they'd gotten together ahead of time and scripted their answers because they were all the same. the fix is in. the big money crowd runs things in washington. my voice can't be heard. my voice doesn't matter. this is the way people feel when you actually ask them to talk about this issue. so we have to do something about this.

and the good news is that we have a bill that we've worked on really well, we've got a lot of input from people, not just here in the chamber who are sensitive, but we've got a lot of input from people out there in the country who care about this issue. we've crafted something that i think passes the test of addressing in a meaningful way the cynicism and anger that people feel this desire to get their government back, to get their voice back, and they should know that there are people here who are determined to make this kind of change, with the help and support and momentum and advocacy that can come from people, everyday citizens, around the country. i'm pleased that we're joined as well this evening with another person who was an original co-sponsor of the government by the people act, he's relatively

new to congress but not new to a commitment and passion around this issue. and one of the first conversations we had was about how do you reach out to everyday citizens and make them feel that they're really part of the process, that their voice really can be heard? it's a pleasure to yield some time to my colleague, bay toe o'rourke, from texas. -- beto o'rourke from texas. mr. o'rourke: thank you, i'm pleased to be here with my , i'm gues from maryland honored that my colleague from maryland would allow me to say a few words, he's been a bright spot for me here in my first session in kuok. like my colleague from california, i had the privilege of serving on the city council in el paso for two terms. i represented a constituency of

60,000 to 70,000 people, about a tenth of the constituency we represent here in congress. to win those elections, to be able to serve on the city council, like my good friend from california, i went door to door to meet my constituents, meet those who are likely to vote in this election, make my case for why i might be the best alderman or councilmember to represent their interests on city council and then by election day, after having spent maybe $40,000 or $50,000, total, a tenth of what you'd have to spend in a conservatively managed congressional race, we ended up having the good fortune to win and serve in city council and not only was that the best way to get elected, it was for me, as a new member of the city council in el paso, texas the best way for me to understand what my constituents' interests were, the questions that they wanted to have answered and what their expectations were of me as their representative on the city

council. and so when i made the decision to run for congress, i chose to run for a seat that was currently held by an incumbent member of congress, ran for that seat in the primary, which was going to be the decisive election in that election cycle and precisely because we didn't have access to the kind of big money we're talking about today, the political action committee money, the big donor money across this country and even the big money in el paso, texas, as the mother of invention, the necessity of finding those voters, being able to connect with them, we went door-to-door again this time in a constituency of 700,000 people. so a very broad, very long canvassing effort that lasted over nine months and had me knocking personally on more than 16,000 doors. so, while my good friend from maryland has actually modeled the government by the people act

concept in his own district, i think more out of virtue and more out of an effort to prove that this works and understand what the opportunities and limits are of a different campaign funding paradigm and i can't thank him enough for doing that, because he's tested it and proven it, we did something similar but out of necessity. again, as with the city council races, we were fortunate enough that the case we made to the voters prevailed. we were fortunate enough to be elected to sit here in this congress with these great colleagues i serve with now but i tell you that a rude awakening was delivered when after i'd won this seat through the primary positive which was the election, the number one issue people wanted to talk about, was not what policies was i likely to support or what committees

did i want to serve on, what did i want to get done in my fers term in congress, most of the conversations unfortunately resolve -- revolved around money. where was i going to raise money from? who was i going to give the money i raised to? who was i going to hire as a campaign person in washington, d.c. i didn't know that the creature existed until that point because we had the good fortune of being buffeted from, or buffered from money in that first race. and so when so much centered around money, as i came into congress, and you don't run for congress to raise money, you don't run for congress to spend money. you don't run for congress to meet lobbyists and to meet those who run political action committees, jl though there are plenty of nice people in those categories. you run for congress because you want to get something done. because you believe in ideas bigger than yourself.

things that will help the community you serve. issue that are going to help dephone your country that you want your community to have a voice in. those are the reasons i ran for congress. sadly those are not the things most people up here wanted to talk about. i was able to talk with a professor at harvard who is somebody, if you haven't seen his lectures that you can find on youtube or have the chance to see in person, you should. he's put a lot of thought, written about this subject, he's delivered some very compelling lectures about the enflunes of money and politics. as i was met with this challenge of how to respond to the demands for money in politics in my new career as a member of congress, i started to do some searches on the internet found one of lawrence lessig's lectures and he brought up an important point. when we have an election for congress, there are two elections. there's the election we all